Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?

[admiralnick]

My friend, it seems that you are set on going through with this. If that is the case, why are you asking for our opinion? You came onto a Christian board asking a question about something that is frowned upon by Christianity. You knew what the response of the vast majority of posters would be and you knew what they would say in response to your OP. It seems to me that you are either dead set and doing this and just trying to argue with us for the sake of arguing, in which case you are free to do as you wish, but be aware there are consequences in this life and the next. If you are not dead set on this, then you have serious doubts but you want us to justify that those doubts are meaningless. If this is the case, then you are already telling yourself the correct answer and nothing that we will say will change the voice inside you.

So either way, the answer is not to do it, regardless of which path you choose.

-Nick

[dzheremi]

I just a had a thought: Some Guy asked me if he knows what is wrong. I think he does, but if he doesn't, doesn't that make it worse? Why would anyone be so committed to making a certain decision about this if he's not sure what is right to do? Generally in life if you don't know what is the right path to take, it is incredibly unwise to rush into things. That certainly applies in this situation, too. Sex is definitely not something to take lightly.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Lets get it straight, we are talking about ideals here.  The Church does not accept premarital sex, but that is precisely the purpose of Repentance.  We should be perfectly honest here, we are all human beings, we are all imperfect, we are all sexual by nature, and so many folks within Orthodox "slip up" so to speak.  We should not be so naive as to kid ourselves, and we should not be so prudish as to become hypocrites towards outsiders. The reality is that our sexuality, even in Orthodox, is complex.  This is why we have God-ordained relationships with our Clergy as Confessors, just as God has ordained marriage to sanctify certain sexual relationships.  When human beings make mistakes, they confess to God before the priest, and the priest assists the Penitent towards healing, towards forgiveness.  So the real answer to the question is, "Ask your priest" because each answer is individualized to individual circumstance. For the OP poster, if you don't have a relationship with a Priest that is the first step.

One way I understand a lot of Churches of many jurisdictions deal with this is the "extended engagement" where we all turn acoyly blind eye

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I am getting the feeling that, like others before him, the OP is a soapbox orator who is enamored with his own voice and delights in shooting down opposing points. May the Lord bring him to his senses before his hubris gets him in trouble.

[primuspilus]

I am getting the feeling that, like others before him, the OP is a soapbox orator who is enamored with his own voice and delights in shooting down opposing points. May the Lord bring him to his senses before his hubris gets him in trouble.

or b&

PP

[PeterTheAleut]

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

You don't get to referee a debate in which you're an active party.

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.

Then you've come to the wrong forum, since we don't deal in sola scriptura here, nor do we kowtow to those who insist that we speak sola scriptura. You came to an Orthodox Christian forum, so we will give you an Orthodox Christian perspective. If you don't like this, then you have the complete freedom to go to another forum that will tell you exactly what you want to hear.

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.

Thank you for admitting that we're right about you, that you DO hear only what you want to hear. (IOW, your game of hair splitting doesn't fool us.)

[Hiwot]

selam all

this post reminded me of a story one monk told me: there was a monk in a monastery living with his other monastic brothers and it was the season of the Great Lent, and while he was out doing his monastic obedience  he found an egg in the woods, and he took it and hid it in his cell, then he started to think i know i can not eat this the usual way the smell will alert my brothers and it is lent, so he sat half the night thinking how he can fry this egg without being detected, finally on a moment of inspiration he lit the vigil candle and holding the egg with a wood filer, he started to burn the egg, while he was doing this the Abbot who saw all this by the Spirit while sitting in his cell came knocking on his door, and the monk quickly hid the egg and opened the door, the Abbot asked him,' Abba what were you just doing?' the monk says ' I was sitting Abba' the abbot says ' yes you were in deed sittin but what were you doing while you were sitting?' 'I lit a candle Abba' 'yes after you lit the candle what else did you do my child?' the monk now realising that the abbot knew what he has done became terrified and ashamed so he said' forgive me Abba the Devil made me do it !' and he fell at the feet of the abbot, while he was doing that, the Demon who was observing the whole spectacle, said in a very exasperated voice, ' I swear as long as i have lived i have never seen that technique of frying an egg before, i was so impressed i was learning from him not the other way round!'

my dear brother, the apostle says : All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 1Corinth6:18
 
and all the other bending of the original law our God instituted is due to the hardness of man's heart, me and you , like you are doing now , want a loop hole to get what we want when we want it, the Lord calls it ' hardness of heart' because for the pure of heart, for those who hunger to serve God who is Holy, and who calls them all to be Holy , will not err in the side of committing a sin , they err in the side of abstaining from it. this has been the wisdom of the fathers  when the questions have to do with doing the will of the flesh and the answer seems ambiguous to you ' adelewa letsom!/ judge on the side of abstaining!' but on this case clearly the sex you want to have is a sin with out a doubt in my mind, as the lord have said for all the other excuses we might want to give  be it for divorce or anything that has to do the sexual relation of man and woman  our Lord gave us the rule , and restored the sanctity of Sexual union between man and woman to the one made in paradise, and he even made the restoration of this Sanctity of Sexual Union we call marriage the beginning of his Ministry as it was in the beginning that the Lord made them Man and Woman. so Our Lord says for all our excuses thus :'But it was not this way from the beginning' Matthew 19:8 if you are unsure what he means when he says it was not this way from the beginning , he explains how it was and how it is meant to be in the restored New Creation ""But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one." Mark 10:6-8

if you think that the Lord who calls us to be holy and as the apostle said all sin that we do is outside of the body but anything that has to do with sex it is on the body and our body is the Temple of the Lord, then knowing all this if you think you can somehow rationalise and say the holy spirit will be quite pleased if i have sex with a person i am not married to, in that case who is to say what spirit is advising you my dear besides our fallen ego that is? the lord has said to the Samaritan woman John 4:18' the man you have now is not your husband' affirming that we might tell ourselves a lot of things when we live together, that what we are doing is really not a sin which by default means it is approved by God, but it is not the Lord has blessed the sacrament of marriage and protects it with a warning to all including the couple that they may not tamper with that union he made. but these debaucheries we engage for whatever reason we at least need to be honest and acknowledge that it is US and not the Lord that made us do this.

in this day and age I realise it is the broader way many travel in, to undermine the sanctity of the body, giving this reason and that,  it is one thing to rationalise sin and another to be responsible and acknowledge ones weakness and repent of sin. those that rationalise sin do not repent, they grow in the darkness of pride the demons are engulfed in. may the Lord preserve us from such a thing. We have no way of knowing when the hour of our visitation comes, when we are called there is no delay we must go, those of us who think that i will commit this act today and repent of it tomorrow are really living in a dangerous zone but worse is the path we say is faultless in our eyes yet is the very short cut to death of the soul.
 if you think having sex  before marriage will not harm you spiritually you are mistaken, it will harden your heart, and what you feed grows thus it will further open the gates of all other sins, so do not think you can control you lust by feeding it in that manner, it will only grow and leave you empty of the genuine joy and contentment it was created to give.

if a person was lost out on the ocean, with a small boat and gets thirsty and hot from the scorching sun that boils his blood, and heats his body. if this man was to look at the ocean , it might look like water, all other creatures frolicking in it might even make it a very appealing water, but we know that ocean water is not water for a man its poison that will only kill him faster. but in his thirst and being constantly surrounded by it , the man despite his knowledge of what that water which is not pure enough for him to drink will do, he will be greatly tempted by it.  let us turn this into a spiritual talk, Sex is good it was made good by the creator, it has purpose both physical and spiritual, however it has potential to kill just like that ocean water, which is not good for us. if that man on the ocean was a spiritual man, he would pray for the right water, and God willing the pure cloud carrying the pure water will come to him and from that rain he will drink and get to the shore safe.

Remember your Creator in the Days of your youth...

now my whole point is not to lecture you on what to do, but  simply to point out what you are about to do is sin, if you are going to do it please do not tell yourself that it is not sin, that will harm you more than the actual act, because that means you see no reason to repent of it.and with out repentance ( repentant heart) there is no hope of reconciling with the lord.

Lord have mercy!

[Ninjaly Awesome]

Quote
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.

I rarely use this tactic because most people don't need it. However, when it comes to something that can destroy a woman's heart, I'm more than ready to take the gloves off and be brutally honest. People who believe this nonsense and try to justify it openly need a good verbal butt-kicking. Jesus himself did this with people who needed it.

Quote
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)

Yes, I have read on and you are definitely either very confused or twisting them to fit your own views. Have you not considered John 8:41?

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Here the Jews accuse Jesus of being born of fornication. Historically, we know that they have accused Mary as sleeping around with another man, not being a temple prostitute. This can only mean contextually sex outside of marriage.

Quote
[...] 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.

I do know that you're completely clueless about this topic. Your original and following posts say absolutely nothing about women. When your sin involves someone else, especially a woman, I take such things very seriously. Did you know that biologically a woman cannot separate sex from the emotional feeling of love and that men can do this? This is why it crushes her heart if your relationship ends. There's no security against that outside of marriage. I'm not saying you've crushed a woman's heart, I'm saying there's an extremely high potential for it should you continue to believe that it's ok to have sex outside of marriage.

Quote
you casually having sex with her and treating her heart like a plaything
again with the critisisim.

See my previous statement.

Quote
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.

You're a person who thinks it's ok to have sex before marriage and advocates it publically. If I had a daughter, I'd protect her heart by not letting you near her. I don't think you're a devil spawn. I think you're a deceived person who has a very high potential to hurt someone else but doesn't realize it.

Quote
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.

Actually, my sex life is quite good. It took time and effort to make it that way. Most people who get married realize that it's harder than they originally thought. My friends who have been married also admitted this to me. In other words, it's normal for it to be difficult since you have to seriously know the person.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Did you know that biologically a woman cannot separate sex from the emotional feeling of love and that men can do this? This is why it crushes her heart if your relationship ends

That is silly and objectifying women in the opposite direction.  Folks have been making the mistake of objectifying women in a sexual way, this is the opposite error, to desexualize women, or to assert that their sexuality is somehow different from men's.  We are all sexual beings, men and women alike.  Both men and women release "bonding" hormones in association with sexual activity, but our own individual psychologies affect our own individual reactions to these hormones.  Not every woman who has sex "falls in love" and this trivializes or objectifies or oversimplifies female sexuality, and also risks demonizing male sexuality.  You are not crushing her heart in a sexual relationship, you are having sex.  While sex and the heart are surely connected, lets not be so naive as to assume its an automatic reaction.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[dzheremi]

Did you know that biologically a woman cannot separate sex from the emotional feeling of love and that men can do this?

Uh, source please? If this is a biological fact, it should be supported by some sort of scientific research published in a refereed journal of scientific research.

[PeterTheAleut]

Did you know that biologically a woman cannot separate sex from the emotional feeling of love and that men can do this?

Uh, source please? If this is a biological fact, it should be supported by some sort of scientific research published in a refereed journal of scientific research.

My impression is that biology is the wrong science to cite for this. This (by Ninjaly Awesome) strikes me as more an assertion of a psychological "fact".

[dzheremi]

You may be right, but "biological" was the world he went with. If psychology is better, then the request still applies, because only the source field is different.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

You may be right, but "biological" was the world he went with. If psychology is better, then the request still applies, because only the source field is different.

Its both.  He is referring to the "bonding" hormones released during sexual activity, however I think he is wrongfully asserting that women only release these chemicals, as men do too.  Further, its not just sex that releases these chemicals, its petting kittens, laughing at jokes, hugging people, and yes, also sexual activity.  Its a stretch though to then assert that these chemicals create "love" or even a similar response.  We ALL have these chemicals, we all don't love every puppy we pet or person we hug, and people can explain from their experience that they also do not "love" everyone they have sexual activities with.  Also, ANY sexual activity induces this hormonal response, including masturbation.  

The psychology is what is different, and it affects exactly how people individually react to these hormones.  Also, even when people are actually in love, they can also be upset, and so their momentary psychology can fluctuate their response to these hormone reactions.

This is why I said it was a silly idea, an oversimplification at best, and a distorted objectifying of women's sexuality at worst.



stay blessed,
habte selassie

[dzheremi]

Great, now I'll never be able to pet a kitten or laugh at a joke without feeling ashamed. Thanks a lot, Habte. 

[Riddikulus]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Did you know that biologically a woman cannot separate sex from the emotional feeling of love and that men can do this? This is why it crushes her heart if your relationship ends

That is silly and objectifying women in the opposite direction.  Folks have been making the mistake of objectifying women in a sexual way, this is the opposite error, to desexualize women, or to assert that their sexuality is somehow different from men's.  We are all sexual beings, men and women alike.  Both men and women release "bonding" hormones in association with sexual activity, but our own individual psychologies affect our own individual reactions to these hormones.  Not every woman who has sex "falls in love" and this trivializes or objectifies or oversimplifies female sexuality, and also risks demonizing male sexuality.  You are not crushing her heart in a sexual relationship, you are having sex.  While sex and the heart are surely connected, lets not be so naive as to assume its an automatic reaction.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

habte selassie,

Thanks for your sensible response. I didn't want to be involved in this thread, even though Ninjaly Awesome's comments somewhat bothered me.

Seeing as I have typed, I guess I would say to the OP. If you decide to have pre-marital sex, that's your business, and I'm not entiredly sure why you thought there was a need to make it quite so public. I'm not going to hammer the abstinence issue, because I think it would be kind of pointless to do so and I'm a realist. I would rather see you be responsible. Just be clear and honest with your sexual partner; that you are in bed only for the sex. Be considerate, and take the necessary precautions.

[Jonathan Gress]

I once read a thought-provoking article ("Rotating Polyandry") by a rather grouchy but interesting conservative author, F Roger Devlin, who claimed that the supposedly different emotional manifestations of sexuality in women and men were double-edged. On the one hand, since men are more likely to separate sex from love, they find it easier to engage in casual sexual relationships, with the consequent emotional damage to the women they seduce. But it also means that when they do fall in love, it is genuine and unlikely to disappear when sexual passions begin to abate during a long-term relationship. Women, on the other hand, find it harder to separate the emotion of love from sexual attraction. This means that, when they find a man attractive, they tend also to "fall in love" in an emotional sense, i.e. they are not just attracted to the man's body, the way a man might only be attracted to a woman's body, but they typically are attracted to the whole personality.

But this also means that, when a woman feels in love, it's not easy to tell whether she is genuinely in love or just infatuated. This is why more women seem to fall out of love than men, because more women were not really in love, the way a man would be in love, in the first place. The more emotionally complicated manifestation of female sexual attraction, in other words, resemble true love so closely that women feel like they were in love and are no longer in love. Often after about four years this takes place, which is why many divorces initiated by women occur about this time. This is related to the notorious phenomenon of women becoming rapidly less interested in sex after marriage (for couples that have pre-marital sex, of course).

He gave a biological explanation: it is more advantageous for men to mate frequently with several women at a time, hence they tend to have fewer emotional attachments to the women they mate with. For women, it is more advantageous to mate with one high-quality male, but since there may several such high-quality males about, it is also advantageous for women to periodically switch mates. Hence the four-year cycle of serial monogamy. Of course, these biological factors only represent our base drives. They don't account for true love which lasts, which is something supernatural and which can control these base drives. But it's useful to know about these base drives, since it helps us to recognize and deal with these emotions and urges when they affect us.

dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/rotating.pdf

[Shanghaiski]

Clearly, God is to blame for not being completely explicit when delivering commandments.

[Riddikulus]

Clearly, God is to blame for not being completely explicit when delivering commandments.

Perhaps to blame for delivering commandments which go against the nature of the beast?  Ok, I'm joking.... I think 

[Jonathan Gress]

Clearly, God is to blame for not being completely explicit when delivering commandments.

Perhaps to blame for delivering commandments which go against the nature of the beast?  Ok, I'm joking.... I think 

That seems right to me, but maybe I lack the right sense of humor.

Nature is corrupt, which I suppose you could rephrase as imperfect in and of itself, so that we have all these urges that could, if we let them, control us. But we also have free will, meaning that we can, if we want to, control those urges. (I always thought this was the hardest conundrum to accept for the pure materialist: if natural urges are all that exist or should exist, how come we have the ability to deny them?) So in a sense, the Church's prohibitions against sexual incontinence are "unnatural", in that they do involve us denying our urges, but this is to achieve the supernatural goal of mankind, which is complete self-mastery. At least, I think that's the point.

As an aside, it seems to be that focusing on the goals of self-mastery would make more sense to the modern ear than speaking in terms only of what's allowed or not allowed. Modern secularists operate under very different moral assumptions than the Church, so it's not self-evident to them that fornication shouldn't be allowed, since their moral maxim is (as the Wiccans say) "an it harm none, do what thou wilt", with harm meaning inflicting physical or emotional pain. They don't accept that something could be wrong if it doesn't involve pain of some kind (i.e. they're basically Epicureans, possibly with some Utilitarianism mixed in). But I think even the most hardened skeptic sees some value in self-control; we Christians differ just in pushing this ideal to its ultimate conclusions (of course, not in the Pelagian sense of achieving a goal on our own strength, but rather allowing God's Grace to grant us self-mastery by cooperating with His Will).

[Riddikulus]

Clearly, God is to blame for not being completely explicit when delivering commandments.

Perhaps to blame for delivering commandments which go against the nature of the beast?  Ok, I'm joking.... I think 

That seems right to me, but maybe I lack the right sense of humor.

Without a wry sense of humour, it would be impossible for me to continue with religious belief. But we are all different and it's not for everyone.

Nature is corrupt, which I suppose you could rephrase as imperfect in and of itself, so that we have all these urges that could, if we let them, control us. But we also have free will, meaning that we can, if we want to, control those urges. (I always thought this was the hardest conundrum to accept for the pure materialist: if natural urges are all that exist or should exist, how come we have the ability to deny them?) So in a sense, the Church's prohibitions against sexual incontinence are "unnatural", in that they do involve us denying our urges, but this is to achieve the supernatural goal of mankind, which is complete self-mastery. At least, I think that's the point.

Not being a materialist, pure or otherwise, I have no real idea what such folk believe or find hard to accept. Aside from that comment, I would essentially agree with your assessment of the religious life, in that we are, indeed, called to self-mastery though it goes against our natural urges. This happens at different stages of each person's life and clearly the OP hasn't yet heard the calling. I'm sure many of us have been in a similar situation, hovering between commitment to God and our own body's needs.

If he were my son and he came to me for advice, I would tell him that while he is not convinced that the Church's prohibitions are for him, he's looking to take a path that goes through bog-land. I would much prefer to see him behaving responsibly, rather than try to convince him that he should mindlessly struggle with religious rigours he doesn't yet accept.

[just_some_guy]

for today I shall address points that have been brought up. and assosiate quotes where neccissary.
I think this will be easier to ready than addressing the quotes individually.




"I know that premarital sex is a sin" (and any other quote / statement that goes along these lines)
I do not whole heartedly believe that premarital sex is a sin.
that small echo inside my head from childhood. that small grain of doubt. the voices in my ears (from the church) that tell me that remarital sex is a sin... these are very quickly being drowned out by the inability of the combined wisdom of the followers of God to present (or even concoct) evidence / proof / 'grounds in witch to believe in' to support the statement.

if you really do want me to see things from your point of view, then take note that I am not someone who follows christianity with blindfaith.

any future reference to the absurde notion that I know that premarital sex is a sin shall here by be ignored.





"the consequences of your actions, in this life and the next"
are you so blind to what I am asking? if this 'tradition' of the church is based on something other than the bible/direct revelation by God. then the consequences to premarital sex are no worse than the consequences of having cearial in the morning.
stating "the consequences" as a fact is totally missing the point. it is "the consequences" that are in question.

Generally in life if you don't know what is the right path to take, it is incredibly unwise to rush into things. That certainly applies in this situation, too.

I know. that is why I am not rushing in. I am not commiting my self to the action (or even the possibility of the action) until this discrepency is solved.
but nor will I rush into agreeing with points made by the opposing point of view. I will take the time to study these points. and where possible I will counter said points. until eventually we come to the absolute conclution. not neccessarily siding with my original 'preconceived notions'.

Aindriu: 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).

(there are other quotes like this one, or imply a strong agreeance with this)

the "Orthodox Christian".
Orthodox being the sub-catagory of the overall religous faith Christianity.

the "Orthodox Christianity" by definition (Wiki)
The term Orthodox Christianity may refer to:
 

• the Eastern Orthodox Church and its various geographical subdivisions (such as the Russian, Greek, Cypriot, and Serbian Orthodox Churches)
• the various Oriental Orthodox churches (such as the Coptic, Ethiopian, and Syriac Orthodox Churches)[1][2][3][4]
• Western Rite Orthodoxy, congregations or groups which are allied to Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy, while using traditional Western liturgies
• other Christian churches or theologies which consider themselves to be orthodox (non-heretical), irrespective of whether or not a given church uses the word "orthodox" in its official name;[5][6][7][8] when used in this sense, the word "orthodox" is generally not capitalized

so by right, any Christian who consideres their beliefes to be 'orthodox' (non-heretical), can call themselves to be an "Orthodox Christian".

and for my personal opinion on the matter: you are a narrow minded biggot.
are you implying that other Christian denominations are wrong? that what they are teaching is not the "the correct teachings of God, the Apostles, and the Saints"? so what happens to the followers of those faiths? why hasn't the "Orthodox" church made a stand against the follower of other churches, other churches that are (according to you) not "THE Church of Jesus".

I am happy to continue discussing this particular discrepency. I would like to see you realise that you are just another denomination.






you seem set in your ways. nothing we say will change that
this statement, or any like it, is not compleatly accurate.
to say that I will not even consider the opposing view is in complete disregards to the reason I even started this thread. I AM here to listen to your point of view, and then debate it! I am not going to just accept what you say on (and here is that term again) blind faith. I want evidence.

on the other hand the statement is surprisingly accurate. nothing you said so far has changed my mind. and if the trends continue Im not even sure we will come close. you guys (and girls) are just not very good at providing convincing counter arguments.






abortion (still *sigh*)
fist off. when I said "abortions are Not 'bad'", that was soposed to be the header for the following sub catagories. You shold read it as...
"abortions are Not 'bad' socially, because ..."
"abortions are Not 'bad' financially, because ..."
"abortions are Not 'bad' politically, because..."

and as for the only responces I have recieved for these three dot points (Michał Kalina): maybe I miss read the first one, but you seem to be giving examples of how what I said is true.

Quinault pointed out why this argument is invalid.

no she didn't
she pointed out that a woman wouldn't know she is pregnate until AFTER the baby has become a living being.
but there are still the morning after pills. the 'just to be on the safe side' abortions where the mother doesn't know whether or not she has been impregnated.

and abortions are still not the topic of this thread. even though I addressed them in the OP, it was only to put at ease the mind of those few people who would be distrought by the idea that I would even mention abortions.
and take note of This quote:

•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.

by that last quote alone (which happened to also come from the OP), the subject of abortions becomes irrelevant to the main subject of this thread. thus it is here by ignored.








the literal and accurate interpritation of the bible
it was pointed out by Michał Kalina that these two contradict each other. so I shall rephrase:
I believe in the accurate interpritation of the bible.
'the creation', 'the great flood', 'sodom and gomorrah', 'jesus walking on water' and so forth. these parts of the bible I take literally, and not as just some metaphor.

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

think what you like about me. but at the end of the day remember this:
so far there is little to no evidence to support that my interpretation is wrong.






the traditions of the Church. The church is not wrong in these sorts of things...

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

firstly, not just me. there are lots of people with the same point of view I have. it is just I am one of the more resent people to "see the error of my ways" (and yes, I know YOU don't see it like that. I am willing to discuss who is right... oh wait. we already are. nvm)
secondly, has the church been right for thousands of years? lets look into this...

the Medieval Church (476-999AD = the Early Middle Ages. 1000-1299AD = the High Middle Ages. 1300-1500AD = the Late Middle Ages)
in the Medieval Church they believed/taught the following:

• the only way they could get to Heaven was if the Roman Catholic Church let them
• if you were killed in an accident while working in a cathedral or a church, you were guaranteed a place in Heaven
• the very idea of Purgatory
• the idea that, to help those in Purgatory, you can pay more to the Church. or do other survices for the church
• A failure to pay tithes would lead to your soul going to Hell after you had died.
• You also had to pay for the following:
• baptisms - if you were not baptised you could not go to Heaven when you died
• burials - you had to be buried on holy land if your soul was to get to heaven.
• marriages -there were no couples living together in Medieval times as the Church taught that this equaled sin
• and unless I am mistaken, the church also supported the "flat earth" idea.
  

it was not until the Council of Trent (1545-63) that many of these view that where upheld and taught by the church where 'ammended'
and you mean to tell me that the 'traditions' of the Church are a valid reference point for your views? I say no. the 'traditions' of the church are empty unless you can back them up.

oh. and did you notice that you had to pay for marriages? am I going to far as to sugest that the current 'traditions' of the Church are nothing more than a holdover from when the church was in it for the money.








Sola scriptura
tieing in closely with the 'traditions of the church'. kind of a "my point of view / your point of view" thing.
lets start with the Wikipedia Definition. key points have been highlighted:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).
 
During the Reformation, authentication of scripture was governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Furthermore, per sola scriptura, the relationship of Scriptural authority to pastoral care was well exampled by the Westminster Confession of Faith which stated:
 

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
 
Here the phrase "due use of the ordinary means" includes appeals to pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11-14). As such, sola scriptura reflects a careful tension between the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture necessary for its role as final authority, and the occasional need for its meaning to be revealed by exposition (Hebrews 5:12).
 
Beyond the Reformation, as in some Evangelical and Baptist denominations, sola scriptura is stated even more strongly: it is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
 
By contrast, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that the Scriptures are not the only infallible source of Christian doctrine. For them Scripture is but one of three equal authorities; the other two being Sacred Tradition and the episcopacy. These churches also believe that the Church has authority to establish or restrict interpretation of Scriptures because, in part, it implicitly selected which books were to be in the biblical canon through its traditions, whereas Protestants believe the Church passively recognized and received the books that were already widely considered canonical.[1]

under the 'Traditions of the Church' section I gave my reasons for not following said traditions with blind faith. thus everything I believe in can be followed back to the interpritations of scripture.
I honestly do not think there is even the Possibility of you convincing me to follow traditions that can not be backed up. feel free to try, but I am just the sort of person who needs evidence.

You came to an Orthodox Christian forum, so we will give you an Orthodox Christian perspective

good point.
however (as said) the use of traditions as a way of convincing me is highly unlikely to work. the bible may not be the only reference you use to guide your spiritual life, but it is one of them. and surely somewhere in there there is something that backs up your point of view?









the post made by FountainPen
I knew it was humour.
but personally I like to keep things in context. ie: the part of those passages you didn't highlight.







dzheremi: You have to believe in the truth of the faith yourself, not simply go through the motions.
this quote deserves individual reference. however I either disagree with you or do not understand what you are implying.
I agree with what you are saying. that one has to believe in the truth of the faith. but I dissagree in your implications that I do not.
I believe that the way I see the bible is the truth. or to put it into better context. I believe that the following is NOT the truth of the faith:
the worship of Saint Mary. the worship of a direct desendant of Saint Paul (the pope). the need to get baptised. the need to go to a confesional to confess your sins. the need to be circumsied. and the need to live a life of abstinence.

I fully aknowlage the fact that you think I have "picked up many ideas that are wrong". but you fail to convince me that they are wrong. to me they are the truth.
the way you see me right now: missguided. unwilling to see 'the truth' of the matter; that is how I see you!
I listen to logic and reason. I research the issue. I adress the issue. you on the other hand keep to 'what the church says' is such a stuburn manner.

Did you know that biologically a woman cannot separate sex from the emotional feeling of love and that men can do this?

I will let you lot sort this point out. I personly have come to the conclution that Ninjaly Awesome is quite irrational in his approch to this thread. and thus I not going to address point that only relate to his point of view (as oposed to the churches point of view).
although I will not be ignoring him totally. he may still have something constructive to say.

I am getting the feeling that, like others before him, the OP is a soapbox orator who is enamored with his own voice and delights in shooting down opposing points. May the Lord bring him to his senses before his hubris gets him in trouble.

It seems to me that you are either dead set and doing this and just trying to argue with us for the sake of arguing, in which case you are free to do as you wish,

my responce to you two, and anyone who thinks along these lines:
I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am arguing for the sake of finding a conclution. "the truth" as it were.

as for "delights in shooting down opposing points". that is true.
it is an ego boost to not only know Im right, but to also be able to prove Im right.
and I prove Im right one opposing point at a time. if you disagree with my points then maybe you should "shoot them down". prove to me I am in the wrong. so far the majority of my points have simply been brushed aside as "warped ideas".








the difinition of sin
I am happy to discuss this. in fact I think it is the only real progress we have made in this thread.
it is just too bad I don't have the time right now. I will be busy for the next week so will be unable to go online. and because I don't want to rush into a topic of such importance I will have to give it a miss until next week.
if there are any discrepencies you have amongst eachother about the difinition. or if you could cut it down to "the definition" and then add the "reasons for this definition" seporately that would help later on when I am trying to play catch-up.





I have said a lot in this thread. and Im sure I have not even addressed all of what has be brought up so far.
but, unfortunatly, if you pay close attention to my responces it seems like we are just trying to decide what is going to be discussed. we have made depressingly little head way.
please, for all our sakes, read over my responces and come to terms with what I am asking.  even if you disagree with what I am saying
and then, whether through sola scripture or the traditions of the church; at least come up with some clear, definable reasons why you consider premarital sex to be a sin.

I will be back in a week. I hope to see progress

[biro]

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.

[Riddikulus]

I will be back in a week. I hope to see progress

  I love it!

[biro]

Yeah, I'm sure the Orthodox Church will amend its beliefs on Holy Matrimony. 

[FormerReformer]

I will be back in a week. I hope to see progress

  I love it!

I'm reminded of a philandering version of Alfred Persson.

[dzheremi]

I will be back in a week. I hope to see progress

Same here! 

[Shiny]

If premarital sex was allowed, Christ would have a few Churches

[Hiwot]

    ROFL , I did not have a good lough like this in a long time hehehe, this is quite hilarious! forgive me but My goodness!! the last part of your extensive 'explanation' killed me ! the ' progress' you anticipate upon your return will not happen in a church that anticipates Christ's( The Way The Truth and The Life) return, the message will be the same, premarital sex is a sin, you and all of us are called to be holy as our heavenly Father is Holy. if you think you can go around and have sex with this girl or that  thinking it is not a sin and come to commune within the church you will be in grave danger!!!, so plainly speaking if you decide to do it, please do not be partaking of the Holy communion without repenting of that sin. if you do, those of us who have told you what sanctity of the body and soul means before the Lord who shed his very blood for it , will be free of that sin of omitting to tell you what you should hear even if you do not like it. your insistence that it is not a sin does not alter  the truth of what the chrism you received upon baptism testifies in your heart, as well as what the church of Christ has been teaching for all time.

my brother I am chief among sinners , I am plagued and weighed down by my many sins , for this reason i rejoice in the mercy of the Lord that has opened the doors of repentance for me. I am ever walking towards him and saying if you will you can make me clean. I ask him to save me from myself, because I find I am my worst enemy, want a peek into my mind ? here you go : (I rationalise, i oversimplify, and give too much lienency over my sins. I tell him I believe in Him but only in a very small corner of my mind, the rest of my mind is occupied with my doubts , fears, and rationalisations, etc, and as to my body, I say to Him, that he is far far too demanding of me , and sorry but I can not give him my body, it is MINE!!! I will use it as I SEE FIT!  I can say I am a christian, quote the biblical verses, do some good things  but I can not be asked to commit my body to him, that's just too dang on much to ask! surely he can understand! we can ...negotiate on my soul, well not now!may be later in life.) so you are not the only one who struggles with flesh, but I fear you are in a great danger if you decide to call a sin a holy thing. but if you know it is a sin and you fall, there is always hope of getting back up my dear, as often as it happens and he will heal and strengthen you. only please do not deny the sickness so you will get the healing and will not die of it.
  
may the prayer of the Saints be with you .

[Hiwot]

Yeah, I'm sure the Orthodox Church will amend its beliefs on Holy Matrimony. 

my sister I wish to tell you I have always enjoyed your very few but quite apt statements on all issues ! 

[biro]

Thanks. 

[dzheremi]

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.

[neon_knights]

I will be back in a week. I hope to see progress

I look forward to your return, Your Highness.

[NicholasMyra]

It's the lecherous Alfred.

[PeterTheAleut]

the traditions of the Church. The church is not wrong in these sorts of things...

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

firstly, not just me. there are lots of people with the same point of view I have. it is just I am one of the more resent people to "see the error of my ways" (and yes, I know YOU don't see it like that. I am willing to discuss who is right... oh wait. we already are. nvm)
secondly, has the church been right for thousands of years? lets look into this...

the Medieval Church (476-999AD = the Early Middle Ages. 1000-1299AD = the High Middle Ages. 1300-1500AD = the Late Middle Ages)
in the Medieval Church they believed/taught the following:

• the only way they could get to Heaven was if the Roman Catholic Church let them
• if you were killed in an accident while working in a cathedral or a church, you were guaranteed a place in Heaven
• the very idea of Purgatory
• the idea that, to help those in Purgatory, you can pay more to the Church. or do other survices for the church
• A failure to pay tithes would lead to your soul going to Hell after you had died.
• You also had to pay for the following:
• baptisms - if you were not baptised you could not go to Heaven when you died
• burials - you had to be buried on holy land if your soul was to get to heaven.
• marriages -there were no couples living together in Medieval times as the Church taught that this equaled sin
• and unless I am mistaken, the church also supported the "flat earth" idea.
  

it was not until the Council of Trent (1545-63) that many of these view that where upheld and taught by the church where 'ammended'
and you mean to tell me that the 'traditions' of the Church are a valid reference point for your views? I say no. the 'traditions' of the church are empty unless you can back them up.

You do realize that we are NOT Roman Catholics?

[Ninjaly Awesome]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

You may be right, but "biological" was the world he went with. If psychology is better, then the request still applies, because only the source field is different.

Its both.  He is referring to the "bonding" hormones released during sexual activity, however I think he is wrongfully asserting that women only release these chemicals, as men do too.  Further, its not just sex that releases these chemicals, its petting kittens, laughing at jokes, hugging people, and yes, also sexual activity.  Its a stretch though to then assert that these chemicals create "love" or even a similar response.  We ALL have these chemicals, we all don't love every puppy we pet or person we hug, and people can explain from their experience that they also do not "love" everyone they have sexual activities with.  Also, ANY sexual activity induces this hormonal response, including masturbation.  

The psychology is what is different, and it affects exactly how people individually react to these hormones.  Also, even when people are actually in love, they can also be upset, and so their momentary psychology can fluctuate their response to these hormone reactions.

This is why I said it was a silly idea, an oversimplification at best, and a distorted objectifying of women's sexuality at worst.



stay blessed,
habte selassie

First, I want to apologize for offending anyone with the statement I made. I didn't mean to portray women in the opposite direction like Habte said. It was an accidental oversimplification. Pray for me, a sinner.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that women are psychologically affected by sex and the bonding hormones definitely come into play with this. It's  a big reason why marriage is so important to human beings.

Also, for just_some_guy, I'm still waiting on the response to John 8:41...

[mike]

if you really do want me to see things from your point of view, then take note that I am not someone who follows christianity with blindfaith.

So why are you wasting our time here?

if this 'tradition' of the church is based on something other than the bible/direct revelation by God.

You are wrong again. The Bible is based on Tradition.

are you implying that other Christian denominations are wrong? that what they are teaching is not the "the correct teachings of God, the Apostles, and the Saints"? so what happens to the followers of those faiths?

You ‘ve understood a bit. Nice...

why hasn't the "Orthodox" church made a stand against the follower of other churches, other churches that are (according to you) not "THE Church of Jesus".

It has. Many times.

I would like to see you realise that you are just another denomination.

We are the Church.

she pointed out that a woman wouldn't know she is pregnate until AFTER the baby has become a living being.
but there are still the morning after pills. the 'just to be on the safe side' abortions where the mother doesn't know whether or not she has been impregnated.

You wrote ‘abortions are not bad’ but according to the facts she wrote only a tiny percent of them is not bad (according to you).

I believe in the accurate interpritation of the bible.

So why do you want us to persuade you to the another interpretation that you consider inaccurate?

in the Medieval Church they believed/taught the following:
the only way they could get to Heaven was if the Roman Catholic Church let them

I revoke my statement that you understood a bit. You did not. We are not members of the Roman Catholic Church

if you were killed in an accident while working in a cathedral or a church, you were guaranteed a place in Heaven

Who said so?

the very idea of Purgatory
the idea that, to help those in Purgatory, you can pay more to the Church. or do other survices for the church

We do not believe in Purgatory.

A failure to pay tithes would lead to your soul going to Hell after you had died.

Who said so?

You also had to pay for the following:
baptisms - if you were not baptised you could not go to Heaven when you died

We do not have to pay and your statement is wrong.

burials - you had to be buried on holy land if your soul was to get to heaven.

Wrong.

marriages -there were no couples living together in Medieval times as the Church taught that this equaled sin

Marriages aren’t couples?

and unless I am mistaken, the church also supported the "flat earth" idea.

Wrong. Ever heard of St. Bede?

it was not until the Council of Trent (1545-63) that many of these view that where upheld and taught by the church where 'ammended'

There was no Council of Trent in the Church

oh. and did you notice that you had to pay for marriages? am I going to far as to sugest that the current 'traditions' of the Church are nothing more than a holdover from when the church was in it for the money.

We don’t had to pay for anything.

I honestly do not think there is even the Possibility of you convincing me to follow traditions that can not be backed up. feel free to try, but I am just the sort of person who needs evidence.

So don’t waste our time here.

I believe that the following is NOT the truth of the faith:
the worship of Saint Mary. the worship of a direct desendant of Saint Paul (the pope).

Wow! You are right  for the first time!

the need to get baptised. the need to go to a confesional to confess your sins. the need to be circumsied. and the need to live a life of abstinence.

You don’t need to do anything from that list but some of that things might be helpful.

I listen to logic and reason. I research the issue. I adress the issue. you on the other hand keep to 'what the church says' is such a stuburn manner.

God can’t be understood within logic and reason. He is above them.

[genesisone]

I will be back in a week. I hope to see progress

  I love it!

I'm reminded of a philandering version of Alfred Persson.

You beat me (and probably others) to it!

[Tony]

This guy is just trolling.

[Aindriú]

I will be back in a week. I hope to see progress

  I love it!

I'm reminded of a philandering version of Alfred Persson.

You beat me (and probably others) to it!

Post 33.   

[Aindriú]

This guy is just trolling.

Indeed.

He argued what Orthodoxy is and is not by a wiki article. He fails to grasp basic concepts, yet is willing to talk down to everyone else. Either he's posturing with full ignorance, or he's just a troll who's trying to have fun (sts).

[yeshuaisiam]

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.

[Riddikulus]

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.

[Aindriú]

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?

[Riddikulus]

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. 

[Aindriú]

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. 

I disagree.

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

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?