Topic: Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?

[Shiny]

So wait conception doesn't actually become a life until it is a fetus?

[just_some_guy]

Now for my third and final Post of the day. I will adress key points that actually relate to the question at hand.
and thank you to all those who made a relevant contribution to this thread.

Iconodule: Then Jacob said to Laban, 'Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in to her.' Now Laban gathered together all the men of the place and made a wedding feast." - Genesis 29: 18-22

I find it interesting that you will follow a objective translation of one sentance that Jacob said (ie: no premarital sex), yet you are against the over all life style that he lead (ie: Polygamy).

how about I provide a different translation to this one sentance:
Laban, Rachels father, forced Jacob to work for him for 7 years before Jacob could marry Rachel.
over this 7 year period do you think that Laban allowed Rachel and Jacob to see each other? "absence makes the heart grow stronger", stronger love = stronger work ethic ... it seems logical for Laban to withold Rachel from Jacob.
and considering Jacob married the WRONG PERSON, I think it is safe to say he haddn't seen Rachel in a while.

lord doog: "But I say to the unmarried and the widows: it is good for the if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1Cor 7:8-9, NKJV)

let me put it to you like this: if I have already gone 21 years sex free, and when I finnally find a "loop hole", instead of jumping into the first woman I see, I then take my time to present it to the people most likely to talk me out of it... it would be a bit of a stretch to say that I am "burning with passion"

and also, this passage does not say that premarital sex is a sin. once again it implies that it may be a bad thing... but not a sin.

Jason.Wike: Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire."

"in danger of hell fire" for saying "you fool"... Jesus is not being light handed here.

lets cross reference this with another passages: Ephesians 2:8-9"(8)For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, (9) not of works, lest anyone should boast."

so it is through Gods grace and our faith that we are saved. it doesn't matter what we do on Earth then?
well, if we have faith, then we will do what we believe is right anyway. cross reference this again with: "judge not least you be judge, for the measure you judge other is the measure you will be judged by" and you will see that if we go against our own beliefs then God will judge us accordingly.

so to relate this back to your statment, it is not the 'works' of thinking lustfully about others, but the 'faith' or 'beliefes' behind it.
eg: if Im thinking "I want my brother dead right now", this is equivalent to murder because it is based off my faith / beliefes. regardless of whether or not I acctually kill my brother.

this is the part of the article that I go into the definition of Lust, and how sex is possible without Lust... and so on. But lets just skip ahead to the part I point out 'sex is possible without Lust'.

[Fr. George]

OP point 3) the Bible says "And they two shall be one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh" Mark 10:8

Fr. George: (summarizing 1 Cor 6): Don't unite with a prostitute, since by doing so you'll be of one flesh with her

I assume that of the two possible interpritations to this quote I have already provided,  you are not referring to the "when two people marry they become like one, inseparable" argument.
so therefore, unless you have some other interpritation for the passage, you mean it in the sence of "the two flesh literally becoming one, through the combination of DNA into a child".
if this is the case then: I have already given other examples of both a) how to have 'sex' without adding childeren to the equation. and b) how to remove children from the equation. aka abortion.

No, the view is not, "the two become one by combining DNA into a child," but, rather, "the two become one."  This is the context of St. Paul's comment  that we should not become one with prostitutes - the prostitute was not going to be bearing children, but one is going to become one with them because of the spiritual, emotional, and physical bond that is created through sexual union.  Sex itself is a tool of union, which is why the Church is unequivocally against premarital and extramarital sex; one union is all that is intended - one union that is a journey of committed spiritual growth.  If the bearing of a child was the union between man and woman, then what of those who are married and "barren?"  Are they not also "one flesh?" 

[Melodist]

if the car is damaged then the car is cheaper.

Perhaps "not worth buying" or "brings shame to own" would be more accurate than "cheaper".

EDIT: This is not a judgement call on anyone, or a personal opinion, just the implications of what is described in scripture. Keep in mind a girl could be killed for lieing about being a virgin, the sons of Aaron could only marry virgins, and their daughters were to be killed if they lost their virginity before marriage.

[Father Peter]

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.

[xariskai]

The standard major academic resources on philology contradict the position you are advocating. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37085.0.html

is there anything anyone would like to say to try and convince me

No. We can present the data of the major academic philologists and the early church, but what one finds often mysteriously correlates to what one truly seeks.

G-day all
I am a 21 year old and I would like to have sex  angel
however I am not ready for marrage. so I was looking...

"They peered deep down into the well and found their own reflection."

Bump -is there some reason you chose not address the fact that the standard major academic resources contradict the position you are advocating on definition?

[dzheremi]

I cannot believe this thread. I'm with that other person who wrote that you know that it is wrong. If you look for justifications, if you ask yes or no, then you are already far down the road of doing it. This talk of "loopholes" is incredibly stupid and dangerous anyway; it is not the scripture itself that will judge you, but Christ, who is the just judge. And what will you say then?

Also, I hate to play the "I'm older than you and I've been where you are so I know it's not worth it" card, but...well, that. You should not have to put yourself through this if you are humbled enough to realize that your tiny, self-driven world of lusts and desires is not the be all and end all of life, and that what seems like a pressing need at 21 will seem like the pent-up hormones and selfishness of a mixed-up young man as you get older. Stick to getting a stupid haircut or something. At least hair grows back. All you will lose by having premarital sex does not. (And I don't mean simply physical virginity here; see below)

Father Lazarus El Anthony of Mt. Colzim in the Egyptian desert once made an interesting observation that has stuck with me and guided me in considering things like this (I wish I had heard it when I was younger, but I don't think he'd said it yet). He said (paraphrased) that some of the people who come out into the desert to live as monks have a much harder time at it because they are tortured by the remembrances of their worldly lives and cannot escape their nostalgia for them. He himself is blessed to not have that problem, as he remembers nothing good of his former life. I hope the lesson in this is clear for you. There is a certain greatly under-valued/neglected virtue in not knowing the things of the world by intimate experience. It is hard enough to struggle against the passions and the devil without adding to the ways that the demons might ensnare you. Instead, entreat the Savior, saying "God have mercy upon me and save me." He will remove your feet from the snare.

The other option is, let's not kid ourselves, still there. But (Fr. Lazarus again) if you want to experience the things of the world, you are free to do so. You will die, but you are free to do so. I pray that you will make the upright decision.

[Ninjaly Awesome]

My response to just_some_guy:

What I'm about to tell you I would say directly to your face if we met in real life. I'm a married man so I know full well what it's like to have sex.

You're acting like a child who can't control his impulses and twisting Scripture and data to fit your own views. Seriously, take a long, hard look at why you're doing this. Have you even considered what having sex does to the woman involved? It creates a strong bond that she will never forget, even if she marries someone else. If you have sex and leave her, it CRUSHES her heart. I bet you never even considered such a thing since your original post says from the beginning that you're 21 and would like to have sex. Have you considered what it's like for the woman's father? Why should the man who saw his little girl come into the world be ok with you casually having sex with her and treating her heart like a plaything? If I ever have a daughter, I know I won't. I wouldn't let a person like you come near her.

Let me tell you about a real sex life: it's difficult. It takes time and lots of effort to develop it. You have to intimately know the woman to have good sex with her. That's something you just can't do outside of marriage since you aren't seriously committed to her. She will always feel like you're using her if you aren't married and she will always be afraid that you'll leave. If not outwardly, it will be there in the back of her mind.

Man up and stop acting like a boy. Good Christian men put all of their sexual desire and energy to their wives. BOYS go around and have sex with women they aren't 100% committed to. What you're playing with isn't just an impulse to release, you're playing with someone else's heart. Control yourself and get married. I can say from personal experience that it's worth it. Me and my wife were virgins when we went up to the altar. It's something immensely special that we will always have. You should have that as well. However, the choice is up to you.

[PeterTheAleut]

• it doesn't matter what we say, you will only hear what you want to hear

Well, is that not true?

How, then, can we be confident that if we do engage you in debate, you won't take from our debate only what you want to hear, only those points that support your preconceived notions, while brushing aside the rest?

[primuspilus]

Looks like you're trying to convince yourself bud.

PP

[Heorhij]

My response to just_some_guy:

What I'm about to tell you I would say directly to your face if we met in real life. I'm a married man so I know full well what it's like to have sex.

You're acting like a child who can't control his impulses and twisting Scripture and data to fit your own views. Seriously, take a long, hard look at why you're doing this. Have you even considered what having sex does to the woman involved? It creates a strong bond that she will never forget, even if she marries someone else. If you have sex and leave her, it CRUSHES her heart. I bet you never even considered such a thing since your original post says from the beginning that you're 21 and would like to have sex. Have you considered what it's like for the woman's father? Why should the man who saw his little girl come into the world be ok with you casually having sex with her and treating her heart like a plaything? If I ever have a daughter, I know I won't. I wouldn't let a person like you come near her.

Let me tell you about a real sex life: it's difficult. It takes time and lots of effort to develop it. You have to intimately know the woman to have good sex with her. That's something you just can't do outside of marriage since you aren't seriously committed to her. She will always feel like you're using her if you aren't married and she will always be afraid that you'll leave. If not outwardly, it will be there in the back of her mind.

Man up and stop acting like a boy. Good Christian men put all of their sexual desire and energy to their wives. BOYS go around and have sex with women they aren't 100% committed to. What you're playing with isn't just an impulse to release, you're playing with someone else's heart. Control yourself and get married. I can say from personal experience that it's worth it. Me and my wife were virgins when we went up to the altar. It's something immensely special that we will always have. You should have that as well. However, the choice is up to you.

Very well said. As a ~54-y.o. man who has been married for more than quarter of a century , I think I can sign after almost every sentence of this post.

Too bad the OP will hardly even listen, because he says he wants us to make counter-arguments only to HIS arguments "from Scripture."

[Aindriú]

Too bad the OP will hardly even listen, because he says he wants us to make counter-arguments only to HIS arguments "from Scripture."

Alfred Persson 20 years ago?

[NicholasMyra]

so it is through Gods grace and our faith that we are saved. it doesn't matter what we do on Earth then?
well, if we have faith, then we will do what we believe is right anyway. cross reference this again with: "judge not least you be judge, for the measure you judge other is the measure you will be judged by" and you will see that if we go against our own beliefs then God will judge us accordingly.

so to relate this back to your statment, it is not the 'works' of thinking lustfully about others, but the 'faith' or 'beliefes' behind it.
eg: if Im thinking "I want my brother dead right now", this is equivalent to murder because it is based off my faith / beliefes. regardless of whether or not I acctually kill my brother.

this is the part of the article that I go into the definition of Lust, and how sex is possible without Lust... and so on. But lets just skip ahead to the part I point out 'sex is possible without Lust'.

Dude, you cannot have passionless sex. You are a fallen human. And let me tell you that whatever it is you call "sex without lust" will definitely not keep any of your pre-marital sex women around for very long. 

Anyway, your entire understanding of Paul is completely wrong. If Christ didn't care what we did on earth as long as we did things with "the right intention", then why did he say "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter."?

You are grasping at straws to justify your own desire for companionship, wish fulfillment and sexual release. We all do it, but you need to admit it, bro.

[lord doog]

let me put it to you like this: if I have already gone 21 years sex free, and when I finnally find a "loop hole", instead of jumping into the first woman I see, I then take my time to present it to the people most likely to talk me out of it... it would be a bit of a stretch to say that I am "burning with passion"

First of all, good. I'm glad you want to find the right thing to do by asking others of the faith.

Second, by saying "present it to the people most likely to talk me out of it", you're kind of implying you know premarital sex is wrong. At least that's the impression I'm getting.

Third, you're missing the point. St Paul says it's better to get married rather than give into your lusts and have sex outside of marriage. As he is an apostle spreading the Gospel and making sure the people of Corinth (and Phillipi, and Thessalonica, and Gallatia, etc) follow the true path, not giving in to sin, you can pretty much say he speaks with the authority of God. If it wasn't a sin, why would he say don't do it?

and also, this passage does not say that premarital sex is a sin. once again it implies that it may be a bad thing... but not a sin.

Can you please explain what you think the difference is between a bad thing and a sin?

[Aindriú]

Perhaps we can benefit from a regression on the analysis of 'sin'.

What is it?

Why don't we want it?

Then we could re-attack with some baseline definitions.

[FantaLimon]

Deuteronomy 22

 If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

....

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

...

No I'm sure God's cool with it.

[neon_knights]

I would like to have sex

Wouldn't we all...

[Quinault]

speaking of which

Quinault: With your logic a woman could get an abortion only if she took an early pregnancy test and immediately went in for an abortion.

Yes. otherwise by Biblical definition the fetus becomes a livingbeing. before this point however it is still acceptable, biblicly and legally.
but even without abortions I still have other options. simply don't get her pregnate. (see above for details)

You skipped over my point; unless a woman is actively looking for signs of pregnancy (and I mean really looking for it, the kind of woman that takes a home pregnancy test on cycle day 30 that normally has a cycle of 28 days) A woman will not likely know she is pregnant until after, well after your idea of a Biblical/legal living being. The average doctor wants a woman to wait until her cycle is 2 weeks late before they encourage a woman to test. This would put a woman solidly in that 6 week range you speak of. Getting an abortion isn't as easy as many people think it is. You don't just walk into a clinic and get it done. Much like when you have any other health issue you don't walk in and get what you want immediately. It is like any other medical issue; it takes time. Even if a woman were to find out she was pregnant at precisely 4 weeks, there is no guarantee that she will be able to get an abortion immediately. This is in part due to the fact that medical testing is required before the procedure and in part because abortion clinics really are unfortunately that busy. Even if a woman has a deceased fetus in the womb that is verified by medical testing; she likely still has to wait on average 1-2 weeks for the d&c (which is essentially an abortion). In some areas a woman has to wait 3-4 weeks for a d&c for what is called a "missed miscarriage."

You are drawing an arbitrary line here. I am not in favor of abortion by any means. But I am realistic, I know that abortion clinics are not like Burger King where you can "have it your way" either. There is a process to getting an abortion, it isn't instantaneous.

[Jason.Wike]

lets cross reference this with another passages: Ephesians 2:8-9"(8)For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, (9) not of works, lest anyone should boast."

so it is through Gods grace and our faith that we are saved. it doesn't matter what we do on Earth then?
well, if we have faith, then we will do what we believe is right anyway. cross reference this again with: "judge not least you be judge, for the measure you judge other is the measure you will be judged by" and you will see that if we go against our own beliefs then God will judge us accordingly.

Uh, this sounds like some kind of relativism, "If I believe it is right/wrong then it is right/wrong and God will judge me according to how I have lived according to what I believe." This is not a Christian belief at all - end of story.

Also belief is not just mental assent that Christ is Lord. Jesus said (John 14:21) "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." Belief is living according to the commandment of God not just something in our heads. Just thinking/saying Christ is Lord is not enough, (Matthew 7:21) “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Lust, and how sex is possible without Lust... and so on. But lets just skip ahead to the part I point out 'sex is possible without Lust'.

That wasn't my point, my point was if something that is physically less than sex is accounted as a sexual sin than actual sex outside of marriage must also be. As for sex being possible without lust (desire) I don't believe you actually believe that is a true statement.

[Timon]

if you get a chick knocked up, youll be screwed.  You dont want that.  

[Justin Kissel]

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

There are consequences? 

Could be if you're not careful.

Well, I'd definitely recommend being careful. .

[Shiny]

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

There are consequences? 

Could be if you're not careful.

Well, I'd definitely recommend being careful. .

Well abstinence is only 99.9% preventable...

[just_some_guy]

I predicted this thread would cause a little unease. I just didn't realise it would become this bad so fast.
in case I didn't mention it before, or if I did then was not clear enough; I am not here to listen to 'moral support'. I am not here to 'be reminded of the way it "should" be'.
I am here for no other reasons than this: to get facts and define truths.
that does not mean you say "premarital sex = sin. truth" and I say "oh, ok".
it means you say "premarital sex = sin because ..." and I say "no but ..." and you say " yes but ..." and then I say "oh, ok"
this is because I am not religouse person, per say. I am a scientific person and only follow christianity because science actually shows evolution to be a sham if you crunch enough numbers.
and thats what I do, I crunch numbers. I think things through logicly. I compare variables and I produce answers to questions. answers that are proven to be right and not just said to be right.

have I made it clear enough for you? if yes... Good. lets continue

peterfarrington: 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.

to clarify this I looked up the definition on the web:
1.
Property or payment given by a wife or her family to a husband at the time of marriage. (In some cultures, it is the husband who pays the dowry to the wife’s family.)

so looks like we are both right       but since you probly know more about the Biblical times, and because even the definition only said that males pay it as a side note, I shall admit defeat here.

xariskai: Bump -is there some reason you chose not address the fact that the standard major academic resources contradict the position you are advocating on definition?

"the standard major academic resource".   HA!
the reason I missed it was because I couldn't find the line between being witty and being degrading with my responce.
It strikes me as funny how you say "the standard" is on this site.
and I found it down right narrow minded of you to imply that this particular "major academic resource" is the standard for all denominations. This site may not be The standard even for Orthodox christians. let alone all christians. let alone all other academic resources.
so in short; the reason I chose not to address this 'fact' is because it is nothing more than your own personal 'opinion'. next time you want to present a 'fact' then do just that. present a 'fact'

dzheremi: I cannot believe this thread

what about it can't you believe? you cant believe that someone would actually challange what they are taught? that they wouldn't just follow allong with blind faith?
I am very tempted to go into a big speel about how bad blind faith is, but first I would like you to answer my question about what it is you can't believe. that way I won't be going off at a tangant unneccesarily.

I'm with that other person who wrote that you know that it is wrong. If you look for justifications, if you ask yes or no, then you are already far down the road of doing it.

do I know what is wrong? I have a pretty good idea that the teaching of the church may acttually be the ones who are wrong here...
and as for 'doing it'.  If I am NOT wrong, then there is nothing wrong with doing it.

This talk of "loopholes"

I used the term 'loopholes' not because that is how I view it, but because that is how I see You seeing me view it... if that makes sense.
although I am not totally convinced on the matter, hence this thread, I am deffinatly sided toward that I am in the right. that this is not some 'loophole' but actually just the ways it is, and how it should always have been.
but like I said, I am not totally convinced. I still have that part of my brain that says "but this is different to what I was taught as a child". that is why I am giving you that chance to convince me other wise.
and before you say "that part of your brain is your conscience, listen to it". first remember, any converted evolutionist will have the same small part of their brain saying the same thing, only for a slightly different topic.

some of the people who come out into the desert to live as monks have a much harder time at it because they are tortured by the remembrances of their worldly lives and cannot escape their nostalgia for them

funny, this fits Perfectly to what I said above. that little part of their brain reminding them of their past.
are the monks better of as monks? was it the right thing for them to become monks? should they stick to their old ways just because that little part of their brain says they made a mistake?
Im sure you can to the convertions for these questions into the topic of this thread.

if you want to experience the things of the world, you are free to do so. You will die, but you are free to do so.

everyone will die some day. but I assume you ment die as in "go to hell". and the question here is will I go to hell for premarital sex? if yes, then so far you still have done a poor job of convincing me. if no, then having premarital sex can still be considered the "upright decision"

What I'm about to tell you I would say directly to your face if we met in real life

a honest responce. I would not hold that against you ever. I don't care much for tact myself, so long as there is truth in it.

You're acting like a child who can't control his impulses and twisting Scripture and data to fit your own views

I'm twisting scripture to fit my own views? read on... I cover this point later in this post (and once or twice in earlier posts)

[...] it CRUSHES her heart. I bet you never even considered such a thing

wow, that is a little harsh. you don't even know me. or how I would treat a women.

you casually having sex with her and treating her heart like a plaything

again with the critisisim.

I wouldn't let a person like you come near her

what sort of person am I exactly? some evil devil spawn by the sound of things.

Let me tell you about a real sex life: it's difficult

Oooh.. I see now. you have problems with your sex life so you are taking it out on me.
no, thats not true. Im sorry I would stoop to your level. just making a point that attacking the oposition in a debate is not the way to make progress.

PeterTheAleut:

• it doesn't matter what we say, you will only hear what you want to hear

Well, is that not true?

another person claiming that it is me who only hears what I want to hear... you should also read on.

How, then, can we be confident that if we do engage you in debate, you won't take from our debate only what you want to hear, only those points that support your preconceived notions, while brushing aside the rest?

you think I won't listen, so you wont even try.
maybe if you presented me with a point that directly goes against my 'preconceived notions' we would know wheter or not I would listen.
so far any points you have persented that even attempt to do this I have been able to give a logical counter argument to. invalidating said points and validating said 'preconceived notions'.

primuspilus: Looks like you're trying to convince yourself bud.

too bad, if only you said "looks like you are giving us the chance to convince you that you are wrong, bud." then you would have been 100% dead on. you where close tho

Heorhij: I think I can sign after almost every sentence of this [Ninjaly Awesome's] post.

so you are another person who would rather attack the questioner and not the question.
I know this is basic sociological information, but if you attack someone they will not like you. and because of this will go out of thier way to disagree with you. and this is not the way to convince someone of your side of an argument.
lucky for you I am a good, law abiding, and forgiving christian  

Too bad the OP will hardly even listen, because he says he wants us to make counter-arguments only to HIS arguments "from Scripture."

here it is again. and again, read on...

NicholasMyra: Dude, you cannot have passionless sex.

yes, but you can have lustless sex. prehaps you should look those two words up.

but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter."?

nice dodge of the question. in case you forgot the question is: IS premarital sex against the will of the Father?

You are grasping at straws to justify your own desire for companionship

and all those who say "you know it is the wrong thing" as some kind of proof (or fact for that matter), aren't they "clutching at straws"
but nice dodge of the question by the way. denonceing my arguments without actually adressing them.
maybe I should make poiting out question dodging as a running theme... oh wait. we already have a running theme. the "only hear what he wants to hear" theme. read on ...

lord doog: First of all, good. I'm glad you want to find the right thing to do by asking others of the faith.

YAY, acknowagement

you're kind of implying you know premarital sex is wrong. At least that's the impression I'm getting.

aww. and you where of to such a good start.
at least this can be constrood as fact because you used the words "kind of implying" and "the impression I'm getting". so your still one up on everyone else.

St Paul says it's better to get married rather than give into your lusts and have sex outside of marriage

actually to more accurately quote St Paul he said "burn with passion". I am by no means "Burning with passion". it is all about the 'lesser of two evils' (marrage being one of the evils, so don't start the argument you where just thinking of).
and does the bible not also say "It is better to live in the desert than with a nagging, irritable wife" Proverbs 21:19. strictly speeking you should forgive your wife. turn the other cheek. go the extra mile. love and care for her.... etc. but it is saying to go live in the desert as the prefrable option.
so it is prefrable to get married than to 'burn with passion'. but that is by no means saying that these are the only two options. (or that premarital sex is a sin... but you don't want to see this fact.)

please explain what you think the difference is between a bad thing and a sin?

oops. typo. should read 'bad idea'
anyway, it relates back to what I just said (highly conveniant). a bad idea is an idea that, if followed through with, is less benifitial than a good idea.
a sin on the other hand is an action (usually the product of a bad idea. but not the only possible product) that, if conducted, and if not repented for, will cause you to burn in the pits of hell. to put it simply

Aindriú: Perhaps we can benefit from a regression on the analysis of 'sin'.

What is it?

Why don't we want it?

Then we could re-attack with some baseline definitions.

YES!! a structured response designed to annalise the question in a methodical and logical manner.
everyone take note of this. this is A++ work. (sorry lord doog, you are now in second place)

read one quote above and I have given an in-a-nutshell definition of sin. I shall let the oposition in this thead lead with the nits and grits answer.

FantaLimon: Deuteronomy 22 ...

*sigh. that was a close one. I almost missed an important word there. "seizes"
this is not talking about two consenting adults having a fun time. it is about rape.
I shall clarify this right now. I do not plan on raping anyone. Im glad we cleard that one up

neon_knights:

I would like to have sex

Wouldn't we all...

well said brother. well said

Quinault: You skipped over my point;

no. I skipped to the point. it is possible to have an abortion without technicly killing anybody (and note that the technicly is in regards the the Bibles definition). I believe it is called the morning after pill

I also repeated another point:

just_some_guy: •and even if you did convince me that abortions are wrong, I have already given other instances where sex is still possible without the introduction of a child into the equation.

I know that abortion clinics are not like Burger King where you can "have it your way" either. There is a process to getting an abortion, it isn't instantaneous.

these 'clinics' are for late abortions. because you have to kill the baby humanly. but once again you can kill the thing (no a baby yet) early on with other methods.

and just to repeat myself, I like doing that it seems:

just_some_guy: •and even if you did convince me that abortions are wrong, I have already given other instances where sex is still possible without the introduction of a child into the equation.

Jason.Wike: Belief is living according to the commandment of God not just something in our heads. Just thinking/saying Christ is Lord is not enough, (Matthew 7:21)

well said. but another dodge. IS premarital sex against gods commandments?
but you are right about the easy missinterpritation of what I said before.

my point was if something that is physically less than sex is accounted as a sexual sin than actual sex outside of marriage must also be

a logical assesment, but a limited one. care to expand? give references? present evidence?
you made a good point. now all you need to do is back it up.

Timon: if you get a chick knocked up, youll be screwed.  You dont want that.

no I don't. but I would like to know if Im allowed. a small discrepency, but an important one

Achronos

[...]

Well, I'd definitely recommend being careful.

Well abstinence is only 99.9% preventable...

I still get the impression that these are ments as a joke (with subliminal messages). so allow me to respond: no coment



well... once again I have adressed all the posts presented to me dispite actual relevance to the topic .....no. wait. almost forgot.

read on...

it seems that it is a common beliefe that I am only hearing what I want to hear. and that I am only interpreting the scriptures the way I want to read them.
but I tell you now "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Luke 6:42
(you see what I did there. using scripture like that. Im so smart  )

lets start with one I have already covered. Jacob and Rachel (brought up by Iconodule).

Just_some_guy: you will follow a objective translation of one sentance that Jacob said (ie: no premarital sex), yet you are against the over all life style that he lead (ie: Polygamy).

as we see hear you twist one part of scripture about Jacob to support your meaning, yet completly over look everything else scripture says about Jacob. even thou it goes against your own beliefs and traditions

next is this quote

Heorhij: Too bad the OP will hardly even listen, because he says he wants us to make counter-arguments only to HIS arguments "from Scripture."

this is nothing more than a blatant lie
not only am I listening to ALL of your posts. I am responding to ALL of your posts. I am adressing ALL of the matters that you present. not just those that address my arguments. not even just those about scripture.
and in addition to this, I do NOT only want you to make counter-arguments to only my points. in fact it is quite the opposite! I have acctually expressed dissapointment in needing to readress issues that I have already covered. need proof? Quotes from just_some_guy:

•abortions are Not the topic of this thread

and yet I keep responding to abortion posts

Although as stated,

for this post I will adress the same issues that I addressed in my opening post. because it seems some people may have over looked them

OP point 2) the use of Fornication in the Bible
YAY. people seemed to listen to my points...

(see above for details)

I have now addressed these points for a Second time. unless you make a point that directly relates to my question and is not already made invalid by earlier posts, I will simply ignore them. My free time is not limitless.

to recap: what Heorhij is quite simply a lie, and goes against everything I have said and done in this forum...
was this an intentional lie? or did he just naturally miss read each and every one of my posts? either way it is a good example of you only hearing what you want to hear.

shall I continue? I would if I could think of specific examples right now... but I have just written up this long post (see above).
however if anyone of you do present me with another example, I will point it out.

so where was I? oh yes...
once again I have adressed all the posts presented to me dispite actual relevance to the topic. in the (near) future I may decide to just completely ignore anyone who is not partisipating in a constructive debate. please take a note of that fact.

signed Just_some_guy

[Shiny]

tl:dr

Let's simplify this. Pre-marital sex is frowned upon in the Orthodox Church.

[PeterTheAleut]

PeterTheAleut:

• it doesn't matter what we say, you will only hear what you want to hear

Well, is that not true?

another person claiming that it is me who only hears what I want to hear... you should also read on.

You do recognize that I was asking you a question? Rather than accuse you of anything, I would rather challenge you to examine your motives and see why you're really here arguing with us. Are you willing to listen to all we have to say, even if it doesn't fit the reasons why you started this thread? After all, you did say this:

I have now addressed these points for a Second time. unless you make a point that directly relates to my question and is not already made invalid by earlier posts, I will simply ignore them. My free time is not limitless.
however if you make a good and relevent point, I will spend what free time I have researching and discussing it with you.  see my next post for proof

The highlighted statement above does read like an explicit declaration that you will hear only what you want to hear. I hope you'll prove me wrong.


FWIW, I found your last post extremely difficult to decipher since it addressed about twelve different points from about six or seven different posters. Make only one point and quote only one poster per post, and your posts will be infinitely easier to read.

[Jonathan Gress]

tl:dr

Let's simplify this. Pre-marital sex is frowned upon in the Orthodox Church.

Right. It's ridiculous to try and debate whether premarital sex is consistent with Church teaching. I think a far more productive discussion would be to explore the various reasons why the Church frowns on premarital sex and sexual "deviancy", since these are some of the hardest teachings for young people in our secular culture to understand.

[Heorhij]

so you are another person who would rather attack the questioner and not the question.
I know this is basic sociological information, but if you attack someone they will not like you. and because of this will go out of thier way to disagree with you. and this is not the way to convince someone of your side of an argument.
lucky for you I am a good, law abiding, and forgiving christian  

Sorry if I made this impression, but I was not attacking you. I was just trying to word my complete agreement with what others said about chastity and monogamy being consistent with true Christian love, as opposed to promiscuity or cohabitation (the latter being a variant of avoiding responsibility). To you, I have absolutely no anger or any other negative feeling, and I am not judging YOU as a person.

[Justin Kissel]

Well, I'd definitely recommend being careful. .

Well abstinence is only 99.9% preventable...

Meh. (Not so much the above comment, but from some of the other comments on the board...) sometimes I think people make it out to be more diffcult than it is. I didn't have a problem getting to 23 and still being a virgin when I got married. Not that I'm a looker, but certainly I did have girlfriends and a handful of opportunities. Oh, and the fact that I lived with my fiancee for about 5 weeks in one room leading up to our marriage would have lent itself to many opportunities as well. Frankly I now regret how I went about things. But the OP isn't asking about what we think best, but rather what the Bible says (and one might go a bit further into what Christianity in general says). So with that said, I totally agree with your comment that "Pre-marital sex is frowned upon in the Orthodox Church". But I'm not sure what that means to the OP...

[Heorhij]

I think a far more productive discussion would be to explore the various reasons why the Church frowns on premarital sex and sexual "deviancy", since these are some of the hardest teachings for young people in our secular culture to understand.

Seconded!

[just_some_guy]

lucky for you two I haven't gone to bed yet, so you get a quick response

Achronos: Let's simplify this. Pre-marital sex is frowned upon in the Orthodox Church.

Well, I can't keep everyone happy. so long as I don't upset the big man up stairs then it doesn't matter what the Orthodox Church (or any other Church) thinks of me.

PeterTheAleut: You do recognize that I was asking you a question?

my appologies. I thought it was a rhetorical question.
to answer the question "do I hear only what I want to hear?" I would have to say no.
'do I hear what I want to hear over what you want me to hear?'. the answer would be yes.

I hear everything you say. and take note of it. but so long as I am still able to give a counter argument then I will still side with the 'preconceived notions' I started with.

lets put it in terms of the Creationist Vs Evolutionist debates.
there are the facts. and then there are two interpritations of the facts. until one side presents to the other side a fact that is both a) undeniably a fact . and b) a fact that can not be supported by the oppositions point of view, then the debates will still continue.

Quote from: just_some_guy on Yesterday at 06:12:02 AM

I have now addressed these points for a Second time. unless you make a point that directly relates to my question and is not already made invalid by earlier posts, I will simply ignore them. My free time is not limitless.
however if you make a good and relevent point, I will spend what free time I have researching and discussing it with you.  see my next post for proof

The highlighted statement above does read like an explicit declaration that you will hear only what you want to hear. I hope you'll prove me wrong.

prove you wrong. you make it sound hard 

first off maybe you should pay more attention to the unhilighted bit after it. I will address points that are relevant to the topic.
and for some examples of quotes that I consider to not be relevant are as follows:

here we go again...

We don't do sola scriptura here. We don't interpret the Bible as we like.

Our Church does not encourage us to use our random interpretations of the Bible as the source of guidance in our conduct and morality

We listen to the Church, not to those who are outside and think that they are better at reading the Bible than an average Joe.

Deep down you know the answer, bro.

I'd craft a response, but I sense that nothing would convince you.

Exactly.  I tried to craft a response better than this, but I couldn't.

The conscience cannot be convinced by argument. It can be ignored, it can be sorely wounded. It can even be that a person can be immune to its pleadings in this temporary life. But the pangs of the conscience continue into eternity, and the only way to soothe it is through confession, repentance, and living according to Christ's commandments.

Yeah, you're probably right.  That's about as deep as my river runs though...

I cannot believe this thread. I'm with that other person who wrote that you know that it is wrong.

Looks like you're trying to convince yourself bud.

You're acting like a child who can't control his impulses and twisting Scripture and data to fit your own views. Seriously, take a long, hard look at why you're doing this.

How, then, can we be confident that if we do engage you in debate, you won't take from our debate only what you want to hear, only those points that support your preconceived notions, while brushing aside the rest?

hey, look at that. you made it onto my list 
do you see the connection between these quotes? they are all either personal opinions stated as some kind of proof. they are simple statements of "I won't even try", or they are the "you know its wrong" argument. that last one is neither true nor a sound argument.

these are the sort of posts that I will over look. I say will because, dispite my better judgement, I have still been responding to each and every one of them.

I hope I have now sufficiently proven you wrong.

FWIW, I found your last post extremely difficult to decipher since it addressed about twelve different points from about six or seven different posters. Make only one point and quote only one poster per post, and your posts will be infinitely easier to read.

I will keep note of this. but no promises.

Rather than accuse you of anything, I would rather challenge you to examine your motives and see why you're really here arguing with us.

I see I am repeating myself... again
rather than answering you again, I will simply give you quotes where I have already answered you.

however, because this fact goes against what I was told during my child hood, I thought it best if I put the question forward to some people who have a bit more knowledge in relation to the bible and its interpretation.

I personally have to sift through the mess and find what is 'true' and what to believe in, in order to find pease of mind. to me this requires the comparison and annalysis of different views. and thinking through the key points with both logic and a fundumental understanding of the topic at hand.

as stated in my Opening Post, my new found ideals go against what I was taught as a child. so to a degree - yes
but that does not mean that my new found ideals are wrong, or that the ideals I was taught as a child are wrong. it means I now have to clarify the issue. hence this thread...

Yes I am. I am also aware that orthodox Christians are against premarital sex. thus I came to the logical conclution that an Orthodox Christian who spends their time discussing and debateing Christianity on an internet forum would be best qualified to state the 'against's for my question.

my question was not about being ready, it was about being allowed.

in case I didn't mention it before, or if I did then was not clear enough; I am not here to listen to 'moral support'. I am not here to 'be reminded of the way it "should" be'.
I am here for no other reasons than this: to get facts and define truths.
that does not mean you say "premarital sex = sin. truth" and I say "oh, ok".
it means you say "premarital sex = sin because ..." and I say "no but ..." and you say " yes but ..." and then I say "oh, ok"
this is because I am not religouse person, per say. I am a scientific person and only follow christianity because science actually shows evolution to be a sham if you crunch enough numbers.
and thats what I do, I crunch numbers. I think things through logicly. I compare variables and I produce answers to questions. answers that are proven to be right and not just said to be right.

have I made it clear enough for you? if yes... Good. lets continue

what about it can't you believe? you cant believe that someone would actually challange what they are taught? that they wouldn't just follow allong with blind faith?
I am very tempted to go into a big speel about how bad blind faith is, but first

although I am not totally convinced on the matter, hence this thread, I am deffinatly sided toward that I am in the right. that this is not some 'loophole' but actually just the ways it is, and how it should always have been.
but like I said, I am not totally convinced. I still have that part of my brain that says "but this is different to what I was taught as a child". that is why I am giving you that chance to convince me other wise.

too bad, if only you said "looks like you are giving us the chance to convince you that you are wrong, bud." then you would have been 100% dead on.

in case you forgot the question is: IS premarital sex against the will of the Father?

IS premarital sex against gods commandments?

but I would like to know if Im allowed. a small discrepency, but an important one

[Aindriú]

a sin on the other hand is an action (usually the product of a bad idea. but not the only possible product) that, if conducted, and if not repented for, will cause you to burn in the pits of hell. to put it simply

Aindriú: Perhaps we can benefit from a regression on the analysis of 'sin'.

What is it?

Why don't we want it?

Then we could re-attack with some baseline definitions.

YES!! a structured response designed to annalise the question in a methodical and logical manner.
everyone take note of this. this is A++ work. (sorry lord doog, you are now in second place)

read one quote above and I have given an in-a-nutshell definition of sin. I shall let the oposition in this thead lead with the nits and grits answer.

I don't think the definition you provided can be fully accepted, nor accurately express, as the concept of sin, especially to an Orthodox Christian.

On the side, I'll also note that you view Orthodox as another denomination. This is also incorrect to the Orthodox. There are numerous other threads to discuss this, but I think it is important for context that an Orthodox Christian considers the Orthodox Church to be THE Church of Jesus Christ that holds the correct teachings of God, the Apostles, and the Saints within itself which is manifested in the Holy Traditions, of which the Bible is an important part (but only part). This is supported in a large part by historical analysis.

Back to sin.

To attempt to make things simple, sin is 'separation from God'. The story of Adam and Eve shows how man received spiritual death by turning away from God (not so much by action, but by will (choices)). In their spiritual death an additional consequence was physical death. This is because we acknowledge that God IS life, as well as God being pure love. Once separated from the source of life, we are doomed to futile ambition within our own will. This is manifested in our Passions (similar to the Seven Deadly Sins). In some way we desire sins that can be identified down to Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride, or a combination thereof (though not particularly Orthodox, they establish a baseline). Each one of them is a manifestation of the last one, Pride (I want / Me). And yet, none of them after desired, leaves us with fulfillment.

To sin is not just an action against a Divine Law, but also a particular choice of 'Will' against an ultimate Truth (God is Love). We believe that God is the only one capable of filling that 'need' that we seek to appease with our Passions. To fight our will, and our desire to sin, is to supplant/change it to charity, humility, temperance, kindness, and love.

Again, sin is separation from God. You cannot 'be with' God, or be filled by God, if you do not accept God.

If this brief synopsis is adequate, we can look at premarital sex. (If not, let's continue to discuss sin)

Sex is a tool to create union between a man and a woman. Physical joining of bodies, emotional involvement, and of course a spiritual joining. When used correctly, it creates a fertile bed for love, family and children. A good Christian home supports our virtues. It should therefore be expressed only within the confines of a Christian marriage. That is, and acknowledged joining by the community (to support the marriage, as being a Christian is also about community), as well as a seeking support from God to help us strengthen our souls through each other.

What if it is not done within marriage? We will still have the physical, emotional, and possibly even spiritual joining of two halves. Then what? Is it prepared for the creation of love and family (with or without children)? Lack of marriage, even with intention of future marriage, brings doubt, possible lack of commitment, and also can lessen the value of sex, at it's best. Sex becomes recreational. Not for the fulfillment of love and union for two people, but for the expression of Passions. Union in some sense did occur; Separation causes emotional and spiritual dysfunction.

Again, being brief.

If the previous points can be acknowledged, then premarital sex is not a choice that (ultimately) benefits us. Just like eating too much once seemed like a great idea, yet leaves us with regret (I shouldn't have eaten all that.), so does lust. We experience a short period of what we feel as joy. But it is cheap, and unfulfilled. Then what? Another? Maybe it just wasn't big enough? Or just more? It most certainly isn't about love of either others, nor yourself. It is therefore, also not about God. It is about you. Pride.

[just_some_guy]

I think a far more productive discussion would be to explore the various reasons why the Church frowns on premarital sex and sexual "deviancy", since these are some of the hardest teachings for young people in our secular culture to understand.

Seconded!

over-ruled

after all our talk about me not hearing what I don't want to hear. well this is something I don't want to hear.
not because it goes against my opinions. but because it is irrelevent to my opinions.

simply put (that Im sure this will cause a bit of a stir): I don't care about the church. orthodox or otherwise.
I care about God, and a literal and accurate interpritation of the bible.
as I have stated

just_some_guy: without the Bible and/or direct word of God, anything the church does is irrelevent, empty 'traditions'. anything the church does with the Bible and/or direct word of God is worth noteing. however such actions should be kept in context, thus study of the Bible is still paramount.

I you wish we can still discuss this aspect of the topic. but in the end, unless the Bible clearly states that premarital sex is a sin, it does not matter about the churchs opinion

heorhij: Sorry if I made this impression, but I was not attacking you

no hard feelings. I don't care even if you where attacking me, was just pointing out that attacking someone is non-benificial to the debate. and the bottom line is that I wan't to know the final conclution to this debate.

chastity and monogamy being consistent with true Christian love

theres that word again. Monogamy.
I wonder when someone will address the Jacob and Rachel Polyogamy issue I pointed out? not that its relevant. just interesting

[mike]

and Because I know many Christians are fully against abortions, it is only fair that I briefly address this issue:

• abortions are Not illegal. they are not considered murder or manslaughter by today's legal system

Not everywhere (thanks God!). In Nazi Germany it was legal to steal from and kill the Jews. Legal =/= moral.

• abortions are Not 'bad'.

According to you

• socially, because the addition of a child can segregate the parant{s} from their peers / family

Generally it's contrarywise.

• financially, because is cost a lot a money to raise a child. money the parant{s} may not have.

Pack of condoms is cheaper than abortion.

• politically, because the government does not look down upon it. it even encourages it amongst specific economic groups (see financially)

In the totalitarian China.

• abortions are Not immoral / blasphemous. according to the Bible the life of all flesh is in its blood (Leviticus 17:10, 11). therefore the fetus isn't even alive until it grow has blood (Weeks 4 to 5 of gestation; week 6 - 7 of pregnancy ).

Quinault pointed out why this argument is invalid.

• abortions are Not the topic of this thread

They are as you wrote about them in the OP.

these 'clinics' are for late abortions. because you have to kill the baby humanly. but once again you can kill the thing (no a baby yet) early on with other methods.

It looks like you disagree even with your subconscious about abortion. You can't kill a thing. Things can be destroyed but only living creatures can be killed.

simply put (that Im sure this will cause a bit of a stir): I don't care about the church. orthodox or otherwise.

So why are you wasting your and, more importantly, our time here?

I care about God, and a literal and accurate interpritation of the bible.

Accurate and literal interpretations of the Bible contradict each other.

do you see the connection between these quotes? they are all either personal opinions stated as some kind of proof.

Opinions of the Church are not personal opinions.

[bogdan]

I think a far more productive discussion would be to explore the various reasons why the Church frowns on premarital sex and sexual "deviancy", since these are some of the hardest teachings for young people in our secular culture to understand.

Seconded!

over-ruled

after all our talk about me not hearing what I don't want to hear. well this is something I don't want to hear.
not because it goes against my opinions. but because it is irrelevent to my opinions.

simply put (that Im sure this will cause a bit of a stir): I don't care about the church. orthodox or otherwise.
I care about God, and a literal and accurate interpritation of the bible.
as I have stated

just_some_guy: without the Bible and/or direct word of God, anything the church does is irrelevent, empty 'traditions'. anything the church does with the Bible and/or direct word of God is worth noteing. however such actions should be kept in context, thus study of the Bible is still paramount.

Where in the Bible does it say the Bible should be interpreted this way? Where does the Bible say to ignore the Church?

If you can't demonstrate this, then your whole theory collapses.

[FountainPen]

Is this what you want to read in the bible?

Genesis 19:5
They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Matthew 24:38
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day.

I knew it would be in there somewhere.

[Jonathan Gress]

What is the OP trying to do? He should know that the Church does not believe in sola scriptura, so the argument that the Church's teaching is inconsistent with his personal interpretation of the Bible is going to get him nowhere, especially since his interpretation is so out there even Protestants wouldn't accept it (except maybe for the most liberal Protestants who no longer believe in the Bible anyway). The Church has Her own teaching and reads the Bible in that light. Now, if the OP doesn't understand why the Church teaches what She does (e.g. why is premarital sex wrong if it doesn't "harm" anybody?), he could ask for some explanations. Or, if he thinks that the Church's teaching contradicts something in the Bible when taken at face value, he could ask about that. But if he thinks he's going to win mass conversions from Orthodoxy to the "Church of Just Some Fornicator" then he's going to be sadly disappointed.

[mike]

Is this what you want to read in the bible?

Genesis 19:5
They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Matthew 24:38
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day.

I knew it would be in there somewhere.

Yes. And the first people were burned and the latter - drowned by God.

Do you want to join them?

[Jason.Wike]

You know the truth and everyone knows you know the truth.

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

I'm not finding it plausible that you are really in doubt about this so this is a waste of time.

[FountainPen]

Is this what you want to read in the bible?

Genesis 19:5
They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Matthew 24:38
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day.

I knew it would be in there somewhere.

Yes. And the first people were burned and the latter - drowned by God.

Do you want to join them?

Not if i can help it.

My point was, you can make scripture say anything you want it to. I was trying to make the point with humour. Fail.

[mike]

Is this what you want to read in the bible?

Genesis 19:5
They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Matthew 24:38
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day.

I knew it would be in there somewhere.

Yes. And the first people were burned and the latter - drowned by God.

Do you want to join them?

Not if i can help it.

My point was, you can make scripture say anything you want it to. I was trying to make the point with humour. Fail.

Sorry, I mistook you with the OP.

[Heorhij]

theres that word again. Monogamy.
I wonder when someone will address the Jacob and Rachel Polyogamy issue I pointed out? not that its relevant. just interesting

Well, if you really want to stick to the "literal and accurate interpretation of the Bible," then look at Gen. 1:27, Gen. 2:22-24, Matt. 19:12 (yes, it does not directly address the issue of pre-marital sex, but the word "πορνείᾳ" used in verse 9 includes it), and 1 Cor. 7:2 (which implies ONE wife and ONE husband). The polygamy widely practiced by Hebrews and described in the Old Testament is exactly what Christ calls "hardening of the hearts of men."

But then, again, you and the Orthodox faithful are living in two different dimenstions because we, unlike you, DO NOT RELY on what you call "literal and accurate interpretation of the Bible." Rather, we rely on the Holy Tradition of our Church, which includes the Bible but is not limited to it.

[KBN1]

Is this what you want to read in the bible?

Genesis 19:5
They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Matthew 24:38
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day.

I knew it would be in there somewhere.

Yes. And the first people were burned and the latter - drowned by God.

Do you want to join them?

Not if i can help it.

My point was, you can make scripture say anything you want it to. I was trying to make the point with humour. Fail.

Your humor was not lost on all of us.

[IsmiLiora]

I got it! I was imagining randomly highlighted verses in the Bible. I think I need a decoder ring!

[katherineofdixie]

"literal and accurate interpretation of the Bible" = "my own personal interpretation that allows me to do whatever I want"

[dzheremi]

what about it can't you believe? you cant believe that someone would actually challange what they are taught? that they wouldn't just follow allong with blind faith?
I am very tempted to go into a big speel about how bad blind faith is, but first I would like you to answer my question about what it is you can't believe. that way I won't be going off at a tangant unneccesarily.

As with all discussions that seek to justify and make room for or lessen the reality of sin in our lives, what is unbelievable is the lengths to which you will go to create shades of gray where there really aren't any. It's always the same, and it's always baffling.

do I know what is wrong?

If you're honest with yourself, I'd have to believe that you do.

I have a pretty good idea that the teaching of the church may acttually be the ones who are wrong here...
and as for 'doing it'.  If I am NOT wrong, then there is nothing wrong with doing it.

Yes, yes, everyone has been wrong for thousands of years, and you are the one who is right...  

I used the term 'loopholes' not because that is how I view it, but because that is how I see You seeing me view it... if that makes sense.
although I am not totally convinced on the matter, hence this thread, I am deffinatly sided toward that I am in the right. that this is not some 'loophole' but actually just the ways it is, and how it should always have been.

Of course you're sided toward the idea that you are right -- look who's telling you that! "The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God."

but like I said, I am not totally convinced. I still have that part of my brain that says "but this is different to what I was taught as a child". that is why I am giving you that chance to convince me other wise.
and before you say "that part of your brain is your conscience, listen to it". first remember, any converted evolutionist will have the same small part of their brain saying the same thing, only for a slightly different topic.

But the fact that it is what you've been taught is not why you should believe it. From what you've posted in this thread it seem obvious that you've also picked up many ideas that are wrong, that are against the Christian faith that you claim to hold. You have to believe in the truth of the faith yourself, not simply go through the motions.

funny, this fits Perfectly to what I said above. that little part of their brain reminding them of their past.
are the monks better of as monks? was it the right thing for them to become monks? should they stick to their old ways just because that little part of their brain says they made a mistake?
Im sure you can to the convertions for these questions into the topic of this thread.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but it seems that you've missed my point for including that. The point is not to judge the monks and write about whether or not they'd be better off in the world; it was to say that, if you do what you are writing about doing, you too will poison your tranquility with memories of what you've done. You won't be able to get that back ever, either. There is a certain spiritual aspect to sexual union that is abused when sexuality is used wrongly. This is why St. Paul tells us not to go with prostitutes, because by laying with them you will unite with them, and it will spiritually defile you both. So don't throw it away, seriously. Do not give into the world that says that you should treat your innocence (by which I mean, essentially, ignorance in the ways of physical union) as though it is something to be discarded because you've reached a certain age and are a male, or because you feel like you're ready or will die if you don't do it or whatever. Put those thoughts away. Be a freaking man and humble yourself before God and follow Him, not your hormones. A godless animal does whatever his impulses drive him to, and thinks nothing of it. Aren't you better than that?

everyone will die some day. but I assume you ment die as in "go to hell". and the question here is will I go to hell for premarital sex? if yes, then so far you still have done a poor job of convincing me. if no, then having premarital sex can still be considered the "upright decision"

My point is not to say that you will go to hell. I don't know that, you don't know that, nobody knows that but God. You might not know this, but condemning people among us to hell for their sinfulness is not at all a part of the Orthodox faith. (I know this and I'm just a catechumen.) What I meant, or rather, what I believe Fr. Lazarus meant, is that you will die in the sense that Adam and Eve died after disobeying God in the garden. You will lose paradise. Through your action in disobeying God, you invite your death (as we all do when we sin, but as Nicholas Myra put it, you need to admit it). Basically: Choosing to do these things will kill you. You may wake up after sinning and find everything essentially the same (God makes His sun to shine upon the wicked and the righteous, after all), and hence think I'm just being a crazy fundamentalist, but that is not the death we're talking about. By consenting, even hurrying to die in our sins (despite Christ's salvation that has offered us eternal life), we risk much more than physical death.

And you want to do this why? For an orgasm, if I may be so blunt? Again, I am baffled. Eternal life vs. five seconds of pleasure...is there really a competition here, or are you fooling yourself because the devil is tempting you by the flesh?