Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?

[NicholasMyra]

NicholasMyra, Christ is in our midst!

For me to best answer your question, and for fear of talking past one another, you need to define "sex."  I think "one flesh" implies the possibility of procreation, the ultimate "two becoming one."  So I don't think you become one flesh with someone through oral sex.  I don't think you become one flesh with someone through sex with a condom.  

Sounds like you're dedicating sex as Qurban.

The approach taken toward premarital sex by the holy Apostle is one of giving advice and promoting marriage, not one of being a hard-nosed law-giver.

I'm not talking about laws or punishment here. I'm talking about mercy. Do you believe that unprotected sex, then, makes you one flesh?

And, for the record, being one flesh does not simply mean procreation. You're one flesh even if no conception occurs. If you actually look at the words in Genesis, you'd get what was literally being said (start with 'cleave unto').

[orthonorm]

Acts420,

Dude, you are like so awesome!

[acts420]

The actual mental gymnastics occur when someone tries to find even one place where the Word of God has punished or even prohibited premarital sex alone.  They typically start twisting verses left and right to make them seem to conform, if at all possible, to whatever law their trying to create.  It can be quite entertaining.  However, it is also sad to see happen.  Debating endlessly is very tiresome.  So I don't blame you for considering it pointless.  

So how about we just agree to disagree?  You follow the cultural traditions of your parents and tell everyone they're God's traditions; I'll follow the actual Word of God as testified to in Scripture and in the traditions of the Apostles.

LOL. Wow.

I was going to have a more detailed response, but then I realized the mental gymnastics already happening to accept what you want made it pointless.

[acts420]

Because someone believes that if he/she can convice others to what they think, it somehow makes it less wrong.

PP

I know, right.  "He" couldn't possibly be here to see what kind of support other orthodox Christians have for their belief on this topic and, if substantial Scriptural and Apostolic support is found, to modify his beliefs appropriately.  How do "I" know that?  Well, because "he" has an opinion.  No one who has an opinion and is able to defend it can possibly be interested in learning.  Therefore, we can safely assume that "he" must only be here to make his conscience feel better.

(My conscience is clear, by the way.  That doesn't make me innocent since God will ultimately judge my motives.  However, my prayers are unhindered and God's peace guards my heart as far as I can tell.  In fact, my conscience is as clear as the lack of Scriptural and Apostolic support you have for your beliefs on this topic.)

[acts420]

I don't know why I'm just scratching my head on this one.

Obviously in Jewish & Christian tradition pre marital sex/adultery has always been considered sinful no matter which way we contrive, bend, or twist it.  Not really seeing a debate here...

Many Jewish traditions were considered dangerous, if not downright evil, by Christ and the Apostles.  Legalistic traditions are a symptom of humanity though, not just of Judaism.  Many dangerous Christian traditions over the years have developed too, outside of Apostolic tradition.

[PeterTheAleut]

The actual mental gymnastics occur when someone tries to find even one place where the Word of God has punished or even prohibited premarital sex alone.  They typically start twisting verses left and right to make them seem to conform, if at all possible, to whatever law their trying to create.  It can be quite entertaining.  However, it is also sad to see happen.  Debating endlessly is very tiresome.  So I don't blame you for considering it pointless.  

So how about we just agree to disagree?  You follow the cultural traditions of your parents and tell everyone they're God's traditions; I'll follow the actual Word of God as testified to in Scripture and in the traditions of the Apostles.

LOL. Wow.

I was going to have a more detailed response, but then I realized the mental gymnastics already happening to accept what you want made it pointless.

I notice you haven't yet attempted to answer my questions.

[biro]

He conveniently leaves out the verses in the OT about stoning to death a woman who isn't a virgin on her wedding night. Does he think that means they really *approved* of what she did? 

Again, he ignores the fact that Orthodoxy is not a sola Scriptura faith and we don't play the game of cherry-picking proof texts. Using the Bible as a license to do what you want and to make up interpretations which contradict Church practice, will not go over very well when he converts and has to go to Confession someday.

[primuspilus]

The actual mental gymnastics occur when someone tries to find even one place where the Word of God has punished or even prohibited premarital sex alone.  They typically start twisting verses left and right to make them seem to conform, if at all possible, to whatever law their trying to create.  It can be quite entertaining.  However, it is also sad to see happen.  Debating endlessly is very tiresome.  So I don't blame you for considering it pointless.  

So how about we just agree to disagree?  

Ok fine. Go ahead. You can also drink lava, have sex with a plant, fly with your butt-cheeks, eat nails, and deny the trinity. All of which isnt specifically laid out in scripture either.

No matter what the argument you will try to push it down. So go ahead and have fun. Shag to your heart's content. When you're standing before God He asks you why, try YOUR legalisms on Him.

The Church teaches through Tradition not to do it. Scripture also says it. If you dont agree, Im sure you'll find a church on the buffet line that'll agree with you. Can we end this now?

He conveniently leaves out the verses in the OT about stoning to death a woman who isn't a virgin on her wedding night. Does he think that means they really *approved* of what she did? 

Again, he ignores the fact that Orthodoxy is not a sola Scriptura faith and we don't play the game of cherry-picking proof texts. Using the Bible as a license to do what you want and to make up interpretations which contradict Church practice, will not go over very well when he converts and has to go to Confession someday.

it wont matter. the squirms will continue. The reason why "sexual immorality" was not SPECIFICALLY drawn out is because it was pretty much understood.

You follow the cultural traditions of your parents and tell everyone they're God's traditions; I'll follow the actual Word of God as testified to in Scripture and in the traditions of the Apostles

yeah yeah. We've heard that before....its simply an easier way of saying "I have faith, and everybody I dont agree with has religion". When you have an original thought, give us a shout. Till then enjoy the buffet, it wont last forever.

PP

[LizaSymonenko]

Dear biro, Christ is in our midst!  

Virginity is to be praised.  No one has said it isn't.  But no, valuing virginity doesn't not imply it is a sin to have sex before marriage by any stretch of logic.  Marriage and sex and procreation are all to be praised to.  There were non-virgin saints too.  

The "most people married young" thing is repeated a lot.  I don't really see the point.  Premarital sex was regulated but never punished in the Scriptures, not differently than marriage itself.  So yes, it was happening.  It was going on to such an extent that it was regulated, and it is never referred to as sin nor forbidden anywhere in Holy Scripture.

There were no automobiles in the first few centuries of the Way.  Of course the early Fathers didn't write about automobiles.  There was premarital sex going on.  You can deny it if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect me to deny reality along with you.

I can imagine someone of a similar legalistic mindset to yours, just with different details, some 1500 years ago.  He would've been found saying to some priest somewhere, "Listen, I know you want to have sex with your wife.  And I know Scripture never says you can't.  However, if you read up on the principles of logic, you won't find one that supports a principle of, 'Argument from I Really, Really Want to.'"  

In Christ,
Acts420

I suppose part of the problem here is the question of what exactly is "official" church teaching.  I suspect that is why Peter is trying to avoid answering my question.  Perhaps there is no actual "official" church teaching prohibiting sex before marriage.  I don't know, I'm new to orthodoxy.

Why do you think there are so many saints who were virgins, and so many saints wrote in praise of virginity? What on Earth could that possibly mean, except to accord a specialness to waiting for marriage?

Most people got married young, and by arrangement, in the ancient world. There simply wasn't a practice of frequent dating and waiting years and years to make the choice.

The Holy Fathers didn't write a lot about automobiles, but that doesn't mean you can get in your car and go 100 mph in a school zone. They didn't write about guns, but that doesn't mean you should take one and fire indiscriminately into a public square.

If you read up on the principles of logic, you won't find one that supports a principle of, "Argument from I Really, Really Want to."

So, if pre-marital sex was permitted, why the big deal of bringing the women to be stoned for fornicating before Christ?  Because sex without marriage was not permitted.  Yes, Christ forgave her, but, then He instructed her to SIN NO MORE....he didn't tell her to go and continue to have a good time.

Why is it that St. Paul instructs people to remain "like him" in a celibate state, and then states that if the person cannot stand to be "alone" then they should marry.

Why is it that God destroyed Soddom and Gemorrah?

Mostly, why is it that St. Joseph was so worried when he found out that the Virgen Mary was pregnant - and unwed?

[orthonorm]

Because someone believes that if he/she can convice others to what they think, it somehow makes it less wrong.

PP

That is how right and wrong tend to work.

[primuspilus]

nevermind. I should not have posted what I just did. Not cool of me.

PP

[acts420]

I notice you haven't yet attempted to answer my questions.

Dear Peter, Christ is in our midst!

Actually, my joy, I answered all your questions to the best of my ability in my first reply to you, see Reply #338.  In the same reply, I asked you some questions in return.  Your response was, "I'm the one asking the questions here..." (see Reply #340)

So you, my brother, are the one refusing to answer questions.  You apparently either think you are entitled to hold inquisitions instead of having conversations, or you aren't able to even try to answer my questions.

In Christ,
Acts420

[biro]

More word games.

I think he's just here for the fun of it. He knows we don't agree and never will. So there's no point to him repeating himself, unless he gets a kick out of it.

If he ever gets married in the Orthodox Church, God protect his poor wife.

[primuspilus]

I know, right.  "He" couldn't possibly be here to see what kind of support other orthodox Christians have for their belief on this topic and, if substantial Scriptural and Apostolic support is found, to modify his beliefs appropriately.  How do "I" know that?  Well, because "he" has an opinion.  No one who has an opinion and is able to defend it can possibly be interested in learning.  Therefore, we can safely assume that "he" must only be here to make his conscience feel better

You've been casting aside every bit of evidence presented. It has nothing to do with "righting-the-ship" to use a naval term.

In fact, my conscience is as clear as the lack of Scriptural and Apostolic support you have for your beliefs on this topic

You can deny the world is round and all the proofs thereof as well. It doesn't make it so. If you refuse to accept the multitude of refrences you've been given, thats on you. Have a blast.

PP

[acts420]

He conveniently leaves out the verses in the OT about stoning to death a woman who isn't a virgin on her wedding night. Does he think that means they really *approved* of what she did?  

Again, he ignores the fact that Orthodoxy is not a sola Scriptura faith and we don't play the game of cherry-picking proof texts. Using the Bible as a license to do what you want and to make up interpretations which contradict Church practice, will not go over very well when he converts and has to go to Confession someday.

Dear biro, haven't you read the Scriptures?  No woman is ever stoned to death in the OT for *only* not being a virgin on her wedding night.  Some Scripture twisters try to use Deuteronomy 22:20-21 to say otherwise. However, read the passage.  If a girl is discovered to not be a virgin *on her wedding night* she is killed.  She is only punished if he discovers that she isn't a virgin *on her wedding night*. In other words, she mislead him into thinking she was a virgin in order to gain his love and marriage.  Any Jewish Rabbi will explain this to you.  There were marriages involving honest non-virgins all the time. The girls weren't even punished at all much less killed for God's sake!  Premarital sex, in and of itself, is never punished according to Scripture.

I'm not ignoring the fact that orthodoxy is not a sola Scriptura faith.  I'm eternally grateful for the Apostolic holy traditions.  Holy Scripture is still incredibly valuable and is to be studied very carefully in the proper context.  That context, however, is Apostolic tradition... not whatever biro says, nor what biro's parents said, nor even what the majority of current orthodox Christians say.  I don't find premarital sex clearly condemned in the early Fathers either.  The prohibition is not only strikingly absent from Scripture, it also seems to have crept into common Christian thought through cultural traditions.

[acts420]

Dear LizaSymonenko, Christ is in our midst!  

No woman was ever brought to be stoned before Christ for premarital sex, my joy.  She was brought to be stoned for adultery.  There is an enormous difference.  Adultery is clearly condemned as sin in Scripture (Exodus 20:14, Proverbs 6:32, Luke 18:19).  Premarital sex never is, not one single time.

Paul instructed people to remain celibate if possible, but to embrace sexual desire and marriage as a gift if not possible.  I wrote about the passage at http://www.unc.edu/home/jasondm/sex.html , saying, "(In 1st Cor. 7) Paul says, 'Now to the unmarried... It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.' (v. 8,9) Again, at first glance this can be used to imply premarital sex is a sin. However, this passage simply says that people who are trying to be celibate yet who continually find themselves losing control of their sexual urges should get married. The Apostle Paul doesn't condemn them for losing control. Not at all. He only tells them to recognize that they need sex and channel their sexual desire into marriage. There is a big difference between channeling sex into marriage and waiting until marriage to have sex. Paul is giving advice for wise sexual behavior in the long run, not strict commandments. In fact, before Paul says any of this he says, 'I'm saying this as concession, not as a command.' (v. 6) Only later does he start giving commands. (v. 10, 'Now to the married I give this command...'). Also, consider that there is a process of dating, of courtship, a time period that leads to marriage. Paul certainly does not mean, 'if you wake up next to someone, you'd better marry that person by the evening.' He is giving advice and promoting marriage. He is not being a hard-nosed law-giver in this passage.  

This is the same treatment given to premarital sex in the Old Testament.  Gee, what a coincidence right?  Wrong.  This is the Word of God speaking to us consistently through Scripture and the holy Apostle.

In Christ,
Acts420

So, if pre-marital sex was permitted, why the big deal of bringing the women to be stoned for fornicating before Christ?  Because sex without marriage was not permitted.  Yes, Christ forgave her, but, then He instructed her to SIN NO MORE....he didn't tell her to go and continue to have a good time.

Why is it that St. Paul instructs people to remain "like him" in a celibate state, and then states that if the person cannot stand to be "alone" then they should marry.

Why is it that God destroyed Soddom and Gemorrah?

Mostly, why is it that St. Joseph was so worried when he found out that the Virgen Mary was pregnant - and unwed?

[orthonorm]

Acts420,

Good for you.

I know you are getting jeered here, but keep it up. The gaffs folks are making in their arguments in light of Scripture are good to have pointed out to them.

If they want to argue the "Church" says x, that's great. But for some reason, they do need to find their instruction in the Scripture which you point out is quite less than clear.

It is a point made by many for some time.

Premarital sex as such wasn't such a threat to social order and neither was abortion just to get crazy. You can always tell the problems which are most pervasive and threatening to a society by how harsh and often they are penalized.

Having sex with another man's wife was the big no, no. Other sexual immorality ain't that big of a deal in Scripture, really.

Heck, under the right circumstances you could rape a girl and pay her father some money and then marry her.

Sounds like pre-marital sex to me, of like some of the worst kind.

People do like to argue the finer points around sexual behavior around here. Pretty much however else you spend your time is a non-starter, except abortion. No matter how clear Scripture is on it.

[LizaSymonenko]

Dear LizaSymonenko, Christ is in our midst!  

No woman was ever brought to be stoned before Christ for premarital sex, my joy.  She was brought to be stoned for adultery.  There is an enormous difference.  Adultery is clearly condemned as sin in Scripture (Exodus 20:14, Proverbs 6:32, Luke 18:19).  Premarital sex never is, not one single time.

Paul instructed people to remain celibate if possible, but to embrace sexual desire and marriage as a gift if not possible.  I wrote about the passage at http://www.unc.edu/home/jasondm/sex.html , saying, "(In 1st Cor. 7) Paul says, 'Now to the unmarried... It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.' (v. 8,9) Again, at first glance this can be used to imply premarital sex is a sin. However, this passage simply says that people who are trying to be celibate yet who continually find themselves losing control of their sexual urges should get married. The Apostle Paul doesn't condemn them for losing control. Not at all. He only tells them to recognize that they need sex and channel their sexual desire into marriage. There is a big difference between channeling sex into marriage and waiting until marriage to have sex. Paul is giving advice for wise sexual behavior in the long run, not strict commandments. In fact, before Paul says any of this he says, 'I'm saying this as concession, not as a command.' (v. 6) Only later does he start giving commands. (v. 10, 'Now to the married I give this command...'). Also, consider that there is a process of dating, of courtship, a time period that leads to marriage. Paul certainly does not mean, 'if you wake up next to someone, you'd better marry that person by the evening.' He is giving advice and promoting marriage. He is not being a hard-nosed law-giver in this passage.  

This is the same treatment given to premarital sex in the Old Testament.  Gee, what a coincidence right?  Wrong.  This is the Word of God speaking to us consistently through Scripture and the holy Apostle.

In Christ,
Acts420

So, if pre-marital sex was permitted, why the big deal of bringing the women to be stoned for fornicating before Christ?  Because sex without marriage was not permitted.  Yes, Christ forgave her, but, then He instructed her to SIN NO MORE....he didn't tell her to go and continue to have a good time.

Why is it that St. Paul instructs people to remain "like him" in a celibate state, and then states that if the person cannot stand to be "alone" then they should marry.

Why is it that God destroyed Soddom and Gemorrah?

Mostly, why is it that St. Joseph was so worried when he found out that the Virgen Mary was pregnant - and unwed?

He is and well be!

Now, what you said doesn't really make sense.

If St. Paul is instructing to channel that sexual desire in to a married relationship....doesn't that mean that he does NOT approve of satisfying that sexual desire outside of marriage?

[acts420]

He is and well be!

Now, what you said doesn't really make sense.

If St. Paul is instructing to channel that sexual desire in to a married relationship....doesn't that mean that he does NOT approve of satisfying that sexual desire outside of marriage?

It makes perfect sense if you think about it long enough.  Paul said "if they cannot control themselves," in regards to attempting to remain celibate.  These people are losing control.  They are trying to remain celibate, but can't.  That implies that they are having sex.   Paul then says his advice is that they should marry.  In being consistent with the OT approach, Paul doesn't dish out punishment or even condemnation.  He directs sexual activity toward marriage in a very non legalistic way.  Notice he even said he was not giving commands.  

Consider, for example, the statement, "It is good to always drive at a speed under 5 mph.  However, if you can't control your speed then wear a seatbelt."  This is not a perfect analogy by any means.  It is only meant to show that, upon hearing this statement itself, no one in their right mind would presume the speaker to be saying it is always a sin to drive without your seatbelt on.  The only reason you conclude 1 Cor 7 to be condemning premarital sex as sin is because you presume premarital sex is a sin.  The text does not say it, and even implies that it is not a sin (since he speaks advice to those who are losing control by way of their desire).

It is never called sin nor punished anywhere in the entirety of Scripture, and it was going on throughout the entirety of Scripture.  The modern approach of many in the church toward it (legalistic prohibition instead of wisdom and advice giving) is invented.  It is new.  It is old in the sense of cultural traditions; but it is new in the sense of saying God has commanded it.  God has not commanded abstinence before marriage in Scripture nor in the holy apostolic tradition as far as I've been able to tell.

[acts420]

I know, right.  "He" couldn't possibly be here to see what kind of support other orthodox Christians have for their belief on this topic and, if substantial Scriptural and Apostolic support is found, to modify his beliefs appropriately.  How do "I" know that?  Well, because "he" has an opinion.  No one who has an opinion and is able to defend it can possibly be interested in learning.  Therefore, we can safely assume that "he" must only be here to make his conscience feel better

You've been casting aside every bit of evidence presented.

I could say the same about you in regards to the evidence I've presented.  It would prove nothing more than that we disagree.

It has nothing to do with "righting-the-ship" to use a naval term.

In my view, you are coming close to claiming the knowledge of God to say you're able to so conclusively determine my motives for discussing this topic here.

In fact, my conscience is as clear as the lack of Scriptural and Apostolic support you have for your beliefs on this topic

You can deny the world is round and all the proofs thereof as well. It doesn't make it so. If you refuse to accept the multitude of refrences you've been given, thats on you. Have a blast.

PP

You also can deny the world is round and refuse to accept the multitude of references you've been given.  You also can continue to presume to know full well the motives of those around you.  Continue to assume bad motives on the part of people who disagree with you steadfastly.  Have a blast.

Every topic I discuss and share with my friends at www.acts420.com, including the fact that I've recently determined orthodox Christianity to have the Way, was forged through study, prayer, and honest discussions with various Christians, often contentious discussions exactly like this one.  I know my motives for being here.  You, my joy, do not.

In Christ,
Acts420

[acts420]

Dear Nicholas, Christ is in our midst!

I don't understand what you mean by Qurban.  I've never heard that word used that I recall.

Yes, I believe unprotected sex is the "one flesh" relationship.  It may also include protected sex or even oral sex for all I know, although I tend to think it does not.  These certainly aren't distinctions I spend much time thinking about because I do not think either protected sex nor unprotected sex is prohibited by God before marriage.  That doesn't make either of them smart.  I'm speaking about prohibition, not advice.

In Christ,
Acts420

Sounds like you're dedicating sex as Qurban.

The approach taken toward premarital sex by the holy Apostle is one of giving advice and promoting marriage, not one of being a hard-nosed law-giver.

I'm not talking about laws or punishment here. I'm talking about mercy. Do you believe that unprotected sex, then, makes you one flesh?

And, for the record, being one flesh does not simply mean procreation. You're one flesh even if no conception occurs. If you actually look at the words in Genesis, you'd get what was literally being said (start with 'cleave unto').

[PeterTheAleut]

I notice you haven't yet attempted to answer my questions.

Dear Peter, Christ is in our midst!

Actually, my joy, I answered all your questions to the best of my ability in my first reply to you, see Reply #338.  In the same reply, I asked you some questions in return.  Your response was, "I'm the one asking the questions here..." (see Reply #340)

My question to you was this: How do you know that your perspective on St. Paul is correct, correct enough to tell the Church that she got St. Paul wrong? This question you have not answered. BTW, I will deem my question answered when you give me the information I seek. Right now all you're telling me is what you want me to know, but it does nothing to tell me what I want to know.

You said that you come from a church that told you salvation was through faith alone and to never depend on your good works for salvation, yet you saw something different in Scripture.  You said that you come from a church that told you that Jesus made grape juice and alcohol was essentially sin, yet you saw something different in Scripture. You rightly recognize that the Orthodox Church has traditionally condemned premarital sex, yet you see something different in Scripture. What you have not yet told us is why you believe your interpretation of Scripture correct and the Church's wrong, other than to repeat your mantra, "the Scriptures say." The Scriptures are not self-interpreting, so you need another answer that does not draw from the Scriptures.

So you, my brother, are the one refusing to answer questions.  You apparently either think you are entitled to hold inquisitions instead of having conversations, or you aren't able to even try to answer my questions.

You're awfully good at drawing conclusions about me. However, you're also wrong about me. Now go back and answer my questions according to the guidelines I've posted above.

[acts420]

PS

But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court.  In fact, I do not even judge myself.  For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.  Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.

[orthonorm]

Dear Nicholas, Christ is in our midst!

I don't understand what you mean by Qurban.  I've never heard that word used that I recall.

Yes, I believe unprotected sex is the "one flesh" relationship.  It may also include protected sex or even oral sex for all I know, although I tend to think it does not.  These certainly aren't distinctions I spend much time thinking about because I do not think either protected sex nor unprotected sex is prohibited by God before marriage.  That doesn't make either of them smart.  I'm speaking about prohibition, not advice.

In Christ,
Acts420

Sounds like you're dedicating sex as Qurban.

The approach taken toward premarital sex by the holy Apostle is one of giving advice and promoting marriage, not one of being a hard-nosed law-giver.

I'm not talking about laws or punishment here. I'm talking about mercy. Do you believe that unprotected sex, then, makes you one flesh?

And, for the record, being one flesh does not simply mean procreation. You're one flesh even if no conception occurs. If you actually look at the words in Genesis, you'd get what was literally being said (start with 'cleave unto').

Actually you have read that word, just not that spelling probably:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban

[orthonorm]

So you, my brother, are the one refusing to answer questions.  You apparently either think you are entitled to hold inquisitions instead of having conversations, or you aren't able to even try to answer my questions.

You're awfully good at drawing conclusions about me. However, you're also wrong about me. Now go back and answer my questions according to the guidelines I've posted above.

Hammer meet nail.

[PeterTheAleut]

So you, my brother, are the one refusing to answer questions.  You apparently either think you are entitled to hold inquisitions instead of having conversations, or you aren't able to even try to answer my questions.

You're awfully good at drawing conclusions about me. However, you're also wrong about me. Now go back and answer my questions according to the guidelines I've posted above.

Hammer meet nail.

Yup. It's how many of us handled Alfred Persson. It's how many of us handled pasadi97. And now it's how we should handle acts420.

[Aindriú]

So you, my brother, are the one refusing to answer questions.  You apparently either think you are entitled to hold inquisitions instead of having conversations, or you aren't able to even try to answer my questions.

You're awfully good at drawing conclusions about me. However, you're also wrong about me. Now go back and answer my questions according to the guidelines I've posted above.

Hammer meet nail.

Yup. It's how many of us handled Alfred Persson. It's how many of us handled pasadi97. And now it's how we should handle acts420.

I think orthonorm likes acts420's argument more than pasadi's.

[acts420]

P.P.S

Since you are questioning my motives, no even judging them to be insincere, I suppose I have little choice but to explain them to you as clearly and directly as I can.  I feel so strongly about this topic that I would be willing to renounce sex and marriage, if I could, in order to prove to you that I'm not trying to justify anything about myself nor my behaviors.  I am motivated by a desire to equip myself and my church to shine Christ's light for the lost to see.  You and I have an honest disagreement about a topic the result of which, I believe, is creating a lot of damage in the church and, through her, society at large.  I believe it even damages the lost when they casually glance at the church for the light of Christ.  This is damage to and from the church is especially evident in the churches and various popular Christian denominations where I live (the U.S.A.).  

Today at the evangelical Christian website thegospelcoalition.org I came across a blog post where the pastor said premarital "passionate kissing" is a sin.  That's right.  "No passionate kissing before marriage."  This is a common teaching where I live.  Many youths follow it and tell their friends about it.  Actually, many less follow it than say they follow it, but I digress.  

You would be able to read my comment on the gospelcoalition's website except my former pastors deleted it and banned my ip address from their website because I committed the sin of saying premarital sex is not prohibited in Scripture.  (  http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/02/13/when-pastors-give-the-sex-talk/ ).   However, the Holy Scriptures never say kissing is a sin either.  Do they?  (they don't)  This type of "lets make up sins because our parents did," Pharisaical, legalistic mentality can and does destroy people and marriages just like promiscuity can destroy.  That is why neither Scripture nor the Holy Apostles give legalistic laws against premarital sex (and they do for most every other act you call sexually immoral, including even rare acts).  

I grew up under the teachings of pastors like those at the gospelcoalition.org, in fact one former pastor helps to organize it.  I was taught by this mainstream American church that it was a grave sin against God Almighty to ever kiss, treat, look at, or even *think about* a female other than exactly how I would look at a sister... until marriage.  And so I did that.  Because I could not judge sexual compatibility, I married a woman who I had only talked about sex with.  My pastor said a sex talk or two was allowed during engagement as long as I didn't think about or lust in my heart for any specific sexual acts with my fiance.  So I had a sex talk while trying to not think about sex too much.  

With the talk, I wanted to make sure not to marry a woman who thought sex was for procreation only.  I also did not want to marry a woman who hated oral sex if I could help it.  So sue me.  Those were two qualities I definitely did *not* want in a wife.  I also strongly desired a woman who enjoyed "french kissing" (I knew some did not).  That wasn't a deal breaker, but it was important to me.  I'm a free man, aren't I?  Don't judge me; those were things I knew in my heart I would enjoy *GREATLY* with my wife in holy matrimony.  Whether I'm shallow is a discussion we can have another day, but I talked to her about many other things in life, ok?  Therefore, I asked my fiance about all of those subjects.

She lied to me to get my marriage.  She thought sex was dirty except for procreation, but said she thought it was for pleasure and procreation.  She hated oral sex, but she said she loved it.  She said she enjoyed french kissing.  The thought of french kissing made her want to vomit and gag.  She lied to me about all of those things in order for me to marry her and give her children.  I sensed the deceit and effects on our honeymoon night.  I asked her a few times about it during the marriage.  She continued to lie about her deed for four years until the day she walked out on me because we were so sexually incompatible.  She admitted tearfully all the lies, which I had known in my heart of hearts was the case for the large majority of our marriage by way of my experiences and discussions with her.  (by the way, she was a habitual liar about many things, large and small, important and completely meaningless, all throughout our marriage on almost a daily basis)

I love her, so don't take this the wrong way.  Women sort of like her were punished with death in Deuteronomy 22:19-21.  Please read that passage * carefully* and *prayerfully*.  The girls there are killed for deceiving their fiance into marriage (using virginity), *not* for having sex before marriage.  The passage, as any Rabbi will tell you, does not punish honest girls who told their man early in the relationship about their loss.  Those girls were never punished in any way, shape, or form under the Law.  They were only punished if they hid the fact from him until they got "caught" on their wedding night.  

I bring up the death penalty only to show that there are women who will mislead intentionally in order to gain marriage.  On my honeymoon night, I discovered a sexual incompatibility that would've been plainly obvious to me not only if I would have had sex.  No.  Our massive differences in what brings us pleasure were so plainly obvious that even if I would've only passionately kissed her once while dating I would've seen a huge red flag.  

Around the time she left me, I also began realizing the salvation doctrines I had been taught at my "gospel" and "baptist" churches were not biblical.  I read Scripture, history, and prayed, and by the grace of the Annointed One, my doctrine regarding  salvation became very "modern orthodox" even though I knew very little about the modern orthodox church.  It became very modern orthodox in so many ways, just not this particular one.

"Just don't ask questions.  Just believe what we say," I keep hearing on this board.  I've heard such things for years.

You have to understand that while I was discovering that salvation begins with repentance, a change of mind, and not with the "prayer of faith for forgiveness" my pastor was telling me, I also was discovering that what they taught me about kissing was nowhere in Scripture.  While I was discovering that Scripture and the early Fathers provide many steps in our progression of salvation, I was also discovering that nowhere in Scripture is premarital sex ever forbidden or punished.  I discovered that Jesus made wine and that we partake in his Blood, not that he made grape juice and we drink a sip of it four times a year.  I also discovered Jewish Rabbis that openly admit that Scripture does not forbid sex before marriage.  The Rabbis openly rely on cultural traditions (not God's Word by their own admission) to prohibit premarital sex.

Then I discovered the modern orthodox church.   So, knowing that, maybe you can be a little more understanding about why I'm asking exactly where the holy Scriptures and the early holy Fathers taught this doctrine that sex before marriage is a sin.  Because frankly, I honestly don't see it taught in either place.  And I generally have good reading comprehension skills and have read quite a bit of both Scripture and the early Fathers.

I don't believe you are representing the true Light of Christ when you say premarital sex is sinful.  You are warping that light with regards to an extremely important point that has to do with the formation of the icon of Christ and the Church.  Neither the Scriptures nor the Holy Apostles were legalistic about premarital sex, but instead advice and "nudging" towards marriage was the Way.  This is the case for a very good reason.  You, my joy, need to spend some time and prayer thinking about what that reason may be.

In Christ,
Acts420

[orthonorm]

So you, my brother, are the one refusing to answer questions.  You apparently either think you are entitled to hold inquisitions instead of having conversations, or you aren't able to even try to answer my questions.

You're awfully good at drawing conclusions about me. However, you're also wrong about me. Now go back and answer my questions according to the guidelines I've posted above.

Hammer meet nail.

Yup. It's how many of us handled Alfred Persson. It's how many of us handled pasadi97. And now it's how we should handle acts420.

I think orthonorm likes acts420's argument more than pasadi's.

How dare you!



No offense, Acts, but pasadi is the greatest.

[biro]

This is the same self-serving story he had when he was here under another name. And it's still drivel.

No crocodile tears here. You had a bad sex life? Not the Church's fault.

I also believe him addressing us here as 'my joy' and his claim to be converting is more a confirmation of his fake tone than anything. Why the same hackneyed patterns? Why does he call us that when he clearly strenuously disagrees with the doctrine of the Orthodox Church?

Because, as in his first role here, he isn't only concerned about sex before marriage at all. Again, it is a setup. His point is to undermine the authority of the Orthodox Church itself. It's a premanufactured framework for his real goal. Once again, he has tried to steer us into his own debate site. Where I'm sure he'll be as fair as he has here.

Judge, shmudge: facts are facts, and you don't need to be Hercule Poirot to figure out that this has been one long snort behind his sleeve at our expense.

I just hope he doesn't take up selling used cars.

[yeshuaisiam]

I don't know why I'm just scratching my head on this one.

Obviously in Jewish & Christian tradition pre marital sex/adultery has always been considered sinful no matter which way we contrive, bend, or twist it.  Not really seeing a debate here...

Many Jewish traditions were considered dangerous, if not downright evil, by Christ and the Apostles.  Legalistic traditions are a symptom of humanity though, not just of Judaism.  Many dangerous Christian traditions over the years have developed too, outside of Apostolic tradition.

But the Jewish tradition of "Thou Shalt not commit adultery" was not considered dangerous.  Unless you can otherwise quote me where our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ or an apostle gave us distinct permission to commit adultery.

But if you would like to add, Jews, Muslims, and Christians all condemn pre marital sex....

So if you don't know already it has been condemned in:

The Torah
The Talmud
Early Christian writings
The Koran (Muslims both Sunni and Shiites)

With that said, I can personally attest (where I've witnessed the condemnation) to the following Christian religions who say it is wrong.
Eastern Orthodox
Roman Catholic   (EO & Roman Catholics make up for 1.5 billion people on this planet and Muslims about another 1.5 billion)
Anabaptists (Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites)
Lutherans
Baptists
Methodists
Pentecostals
Jehovah's Witness
Presbyterians

There is no argument here.   The apostles never condemned the commandment against adultery.  In fact they said "if you can't control yourself get married".  

(*note* the reason I included Muslims was because they claim to be a religion of the God of Abraham  ***** ALSO acts420 - is your nickname suggesting to do acts at 4:20pm which is the time drug addicts or "pharmacia" smoke weed?)

[Fr. George]

Has "acts420" actually addressed any of the academic points in the OP of the following thread...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37085.0.html

... with anything more than, "No, the scripture doesn't say that," anywhere?

(And the username should be changed; Acts 4:20 doesn't say, "And we cannot help speaking about whatever justifies my past and/or feelings.")

[NicholasMyra]

Yes, I believe unprotected sex is the "one flesh" relationship.  It may also include protected sex or even oral sex for all I know, although I tend to think it does not.  These certainly aren't distinctions I spend much time thinking about because I do not think either protected sex nor unprotected sex is prohibited by God before marriage.  That doesn't make either of them smart.  I'm speaking about prohibition, not advice.

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

What does mercy dictate for one who becomes one flesh with another?

[vamrat]

Has "acts420" actually addressed any of the academic points in the OP of the following thread...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37085.0.html

... with anything more than, "No, the scripture doesn't say that," anywhere?

(And the username should be changed; Acts 4:20 doesn't say, "And we cannot help speaking about whatever justifies my past and/or feelings.")

Perhaps the 420 is in reference to something else.

[FountainPen]

Don't worry acts420, everyone gets called "Alfred" when what you're posting becomes uncomfortable. I was "Alfred" too for a while when i first arrived, so was ByGraceThroughFaith. It seems to be standard initiation here.

[PeterTheAleut]

Don't worry acts420, everyone gets called "Alfred" when what you're posting becomes uncomfortable. I was "Alfred" too for a while when i first arrived, so was ByGraceThroughFaith. It seems to be standard initiation here.

Why are you so fixated on Alfred, as though he was the only chronic pontificator I named?

[FountainPen]

Don't worry acts420, everyone gets called "Alfred" when what you're posting becomes uncomfortable. I was "Alfred" too for a while when i first arrived, so was ByGraceThroughFaith. It seems to be standard initiation here.

Why are you so fixated on Alfred, as though he was the only chronic pontificator I named?

Do you see me quote you? Hmm...?

[Fr. George]

Don't worry acts420, everyone gets called "Alfred" when what you're posting becomes uncomfortable.

The comparisons to folks like Alfred come up when users decide to evade arguments, or to attempt to dismiss valid points with little more than a wave of the hand.  It is, hence, an accusation of non-engagement, which is one reason why Alfred isn't allowed to post here anymore.  So, if by "when what you're posting becomes uncomfortable," you mean, "when what you are posting doesn't engage the arguments presented," then you're correct.

[Aindriú]

Yet another thread of Protestants vs Orthodox has devolved to the sola scriptura argument "does is spell it out in le Bible? Not perfectly/not really/nope? Then my opinion is true.".

[primuspilus]

Yet another thread of Protestants vs Orthodox has devolved to the sola scriptura argument "does is spell it out in le Bible? Not perfectly/not really/nope? Then my opinion is true.".

QFT

[serb1389]

Not to be picky here, but if we could stick with philological arguments, that would be fantastic.  Otherwise, at some point i'll have to move this to another board.   

[FountainPen]

Don't worry acts420, everyone gets called "Alfred" when what you're posting becomes uncomfortable.

The comparisons to folks like Alfred come up when users decide to evade arguments,

In your opinion.

or to attempt to dismiss valid points with little more than a wave of the hand.

You mean the same dismissive wave of the hand that Orthodox routinely give in the form of bible-bullit accusations and condescending 'ignorant Protestant' humour?

It is, hence, an accusation of non-engagement,

Hardly.

which is one reason why Alfred isn't allowed to post here anymore.

That's a surefire way of eliminating views you don't want on the forum, yes.

So, if by "when what you're posting becomes uncomfortable," you mean, "when what you are posting doesn't engage the arguments presented," then you're correct.

Well, if by "when what you are posting doesn't engage the arguments presented" you mean "when what you're posting rattles a few parochial feathers", then yes, i agree with you.

[FormerReformer]

Don't worry acts420, everyone gets called "Alfred" when what you're posting becomes uncomfortable.

The comparisons to folks like Alfred come up when users decide to evade arguments,

In your opinion.

or to attempt to dismiss valid points with little more than a wave of the hand.

You mean the same dismissive wave of the hand that Orthodox routinely give in the form of bible-bullit accusations and condescending 'ignorant Protestant' humour?

It is, hence, an accusation of non-engagement,

Hardly.

which is one reason why Alfred isn't allowed to post here anymore.

That's a surefire way of eliminating views you don't want on the forum, yes.

So, if by "when what you're posting becomes uncomfortable," you mean, "when what you are posting doesn't engage the arguments presented," then you're correct.

Well, if by "when what you are posting doesn't engage the arguments presented" you mean "when what you're posting rattles a few parochial feathers", then yes, i agree with you.

There were Protestant posters here long before Alfred. You don't see us using "David Young" as a term of insult (in fact, such a comparison would be desired). Mr Young always engages other viewpoints as they are presented, gives clear and logical arguments for his disagreements, and is to this day still a staunch Evangelical. He also has no problem calling us out when we end up stereotyping or presenting unfair generalizations of Protestants or Evangelicals, and yet remains one of the most beloved posters on the board.

Alfred Persson never met an argument he didn't dodge, his idea of logical presentation is "Thus sayeth the Persson (by way of tortured Sola Scriptura)", and to this day "worships" in his own living room in a church of one.

Also, to my knowledge and according to his profile he is still allowed to post here- he has not been banned and is not "muted"- merely moderated. Look up his post history and you'll see it was for good reason.

EDIT: Apparently Alfred was muted at one point, but according to his profile, should he start posting again, he is merely under "moderation".

[PeterTheAleut]

Don't worry acts420, everyone gets called "Alfred" when what you're posting becomes uncomfortable.

The comparisons to folks like Alfred come up when users decide to evade arguments,

In your opinion.

or to attempt to dismiss valid points with little more than a wave of the hand.

You mean the same dismissive wave of the hand that Orthodox routinely give in the form of bible-bullit accusations and condescending 'ignorant Protestant' humour?

It is, hence, an accusation of non-engagement,

Hardly.

which is one reason why Alfred isn't allowed to post here anymore.

That's a surefire way of eliminating views you don't want on the forum, yes.

So, if by "when what you're posting becomes uncomfortable," you mean, "when what you are posting doesn't engage the arguments presented," then you're correct.

Well, if by "when what you are posting doesn't engage the arguments presented" you mean "when what you're posting rattles a few parochial feathers", then yes, i agree with you.

When you're done projecting onto us the image you wish to have of us, do you promise to actually listen to us as we explain our reasoning to you?

[FountainPen]

FormerReformer: I'm sure all posters who are simply here to "understand" Orthodoxy and show appreciation and agreement with certain aspects of its praxis...   ...will always be accepted and "beloved" for their ability to empathise, engage and stroke the throbbing ego that surrounds Orthodoxy.

#shudders

Other posters don't care for such matters.

[Tags:]

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