Topic: Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?

[FountainPen]

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?

How can i answer this without fury? I can't so i won't attempt to.

[FormerReformer]

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.

You haven't looked too deeply into the Orthodox-Catholic subforums, have you? EM and Papist are some of my favorite posters on the board, and yet make every effort to deflate the Orthodox ego.

Yes, attempting to understand Orthodoxy is a good reason to be on the board, understanding Orthodox and criticizing helps keep us in line and is a good contribution,  making criticisms with no understanding of what Orthodoxy either teaches or practices is pointless, and simply being here to issue Evangelical proclamations with no heed to context nor history nor reason nor anything rational or sane is merely a good way of confirming to a good number of the Orthodox members of the board that we made the right choice in leaving hyperEvangelicalism far FAR behind.

ADDITION- who would you rather be- Billy Graham or Jack Chick?

[primuspilus]

nevermind.

[BoredMeeting]

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?

How can i answer this without fury? I can't so i won't attempt to.

So you are clearly stating that you are either unwilling to or incapable or actually listening to anyone as they explain their reasoning to you?

Well, I think I'm going to go play Tic-Tac-Toe with Joshua, then!

[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,

In your opinion.

What other conclusion can be drawn by the following?

Here is an academic treatment:

Mods feel free to merge this topic in the "Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin" thread if preferred; I was thinking a similar but different thread focusing on scholarly language resources might be worthwhile.

The first recorded use of the noun in its modern meaning was in 1303 AD, with the verb fornicate first recorded around 250 years later.  See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.   The word derives from Latin.  The word fornix means "an archway" or "vault" and it became a common euphemism for a brothel as prostitutes could be solicited in the vaults beneath Rome.  More directly, fornicatio means "done in the archway"; thus it originally referred to prostitution.

To look at the philology and philological historiography (the latter is based upon the former) behind and inclusive of OT, NT, and post-apostolic terms, rather than the likes of The American Heritage Dictionary acts420 consulted, one is better off with the major resources like Gerhard Kittel, ed., TDNT (10 Volumes), Colin Brown, ed., DNTT (4 Volumes including index), and the like. As I have some of these in electronic form...

Here is some selected excerpts from H. Reisser, “porneia,” DNTT 1.497–501:

CL [i.e. in Classical Greek literature]
1. The word-group can describe various extra-marital sexual modes of behaviour insofar as they deviate from accepted social and religious norms (e.g. homosexuality, promiscuity, paedophilia, and especially prostitution)...

OT
3. In later Jewish Rab. language zenut (porneia) is to be understood as including not only prostitution and any kind of extra-marital intercourse (Pirqe Aboth 2: but all marriages between relatives forbidden by Rab. law (cf. SB II 729 f.). Incest (Test. Rub. 1.6; Test. Jud. 13, 6; cf. Lev 18:6-18) and all kinds of unnatural sexual intercourse (e.g. Test. Ben. 9.1) were viewed as fornication (porneia). One who surrenders to it shows ultimately that he has broken with God (cf. Wis. 14:17f.) ...Correspondingly the Dead Sea Scrolls give frequent warnings against such fornication (1QS 1:6; 4:10; CD 2:16; 4:17, 20).

NT
In the NT the main weight of the word-group (used in all 55 times, of which porneia alone accounts for 25) falls clearly in Paul (21 times, of which 1 Cor and 2 Cor account for 15) and in Rev (19 times). From this one realizes that the question of porneia comes up for discussion particularly in the confrontation with the Gk. world and in the context of final judgment (there again linked with a person's relationship with God)...

2. In the Pauline writings the word-group porne denotes any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse... If the congregation does not separate from such unchaste persons, the whole church is endangered (5:9ff), and stands under God's judgment (see art. Destroy, olethros). Since gnostic dualism saw in corporeality something that decayed and perished, sexual needs relating to one's body could be freely and spontaneously expressed. Paul passionately resisted this outlook (1 Cor 6:9-20). The stomach is meant for food, but the human body is not meant for unchastity (6:13). Human existence cannot be dissected into two realities, a sarkik and a pneumatic (v. 15 ff.). From porneia as from eidolatria, idolatry, one must flee (6:18; 10:14), because pornea cannot be secularized in the way the Corinthians hold. It is rather as if a religious and demonic power is let loose in porneia: "It is manifestly a different spirit, a pneuma akatharton (Matt 10:1), a spirit that is incompatible and irreconcilable with Christ, which takes control of man in porneia (Iwand, op cit, p. 615). Because man does not have a soma (body) but is a soma (i.e. is conceived as an indivisible totality), he is either a member of the body of Christ with his total reality or equally totally linked to a porne (1 Cor 6:15-19; cf. Heb 12:16). Thus Paul has to keep on warning not only his congregation (1 Cor 7:2; 10:, but also others (Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; 1 Thess 4:3) specifically against porneia, and with the greatest urgency, because it effects the whole person.

Here is a brief excerpt from F. Hauck and S. Schulz, “porneia” TDNT VI, pp. 579–595:

The NT is characterized by an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse... the concrete directions of Paul bring to the attention of Gentile Christians the incompatibility of porneia and the kingdom of God (in the list of vices in Rom 1:24-32; 13:13; 1 Cor 5:10f.; 6:9f.; 2 Cor 12:20f.; Gal 5:19-21; Col  3:5, 8f.; cf. also Eph 4:25-31; 5:3f.; 1 Tim 1:9f.; 2 Tim 3:2-5). Porneia occurs 8 times; akatharsia 4 times, while in 5 instances he begins with porneia or sexual sins, cf. Juncker, 113-117 and Exc. "Lasterkataloge" in Ltzm. R. on 1:31). No pornos has any part in this kingdom: 1 Cor 6:9; Eph 5:5. In 1 Cor 6:9 the sexual vices (pornoi, moichoi, malakoi, arsenokoitai) are put next to the chief sin of idolatry... As individuals are to steer clear of porneia, so it is the apostle's supreme concern to keep the communities free from such sins, since toleration of the offender makes the whole church guilty and constitutes an eschaltological thread (1 Cor 5:1ff.; cf. Heb 12:14-16. Thus Paul demands thta the congregation expel the impenitent wrong-doer (1 Cor 5:13) and break off all felowship with those who live licentious lives (5:9). 2 Cor 12:19-21 expresses a concern lest the impenitence of those who have committed fornication should make necessary his intervention in the affairs of the community. The porneia of individual members makes the whole church unclean and threatens the whole work of the apostle, which is to present pure communities to Christ, 2 Cor 11:2... God's mighty will for the salvation of men is hagiasmos, 1 Thess 4:3; cf. also Eph 5:3-5. This includes sanctification of the body too and thus excludes any acceptance of fornication, 1 Thess 4:1-5... A man shames his own body by fornication, 6:18 He also brings shame on the body of Christ. Licentiousness is one of the expressions of the sarx, Gal 5:19. It is totally opposed to the work of the Holy Spirit, Gal 5:22. It belongs to what is earthly (Col 3:5), whereas Christians should seek what is above (Col 3:1-3). Paul again and again mentions porneia alongside akatharsia, 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Col 3:5; cf. also Eph 5:3-5). He realizes not every one has the gift of continence. As a protection against the evil of fornication the man who does not have it should take the divinely prescribed way of a lawful marriage, 1 Cor 7:2. Severe though Paul's condemnation of fornication may be, there is no doubt that for him it is forgiven through Christ like all other sins. Along the same lines as Paul Hebrews ascribes the salvation of Rahab the harlot to her faith (11:31), though James (2:25) takes another view and thinks she is justified by her works. Among the seven letters of Revelation that to Pergamon accuses the Nicolatians of leading the congregation astray by compromising with the cultural life of the surrounding world in the eating of meat sacrificed to idols and the practicing of free sexual intercourse (porneia), 2:14. For the author the OT model for this is the doctrine of Balaam who led Israel astray in the same fashion, Num 25:1ff; 31:16. Along the same lines the church of Thyatira is charged with tolerating a prophetess who teaches the same practices, 2:20f... Among the leading pagan sins to which men will cling in the last days despite all the divine judgments, Rev 9:21 mentions idolatry, murder, witchcraft, and theft, and along with these unrestricted sexual indulgence... E. The Post-Apostolic Fathers. Herm. m. 4.1 warns against porneia which is the result of carnal desire. Cf. also Did 3.3."

Here is one more brief excerpt from D. F. Wright, "Sexuality, Sexual Ethics" in Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel Reid, eds., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Scholarship (1993), pp. 871- 875:

"Paul never addressed the subject of human sexuality in a systematic manner, but said much about it in response to particular questions. Nevertheless, 1 Thessalonians 4:1–8 suggests that his basic teaching to a community of new converts covered sexual behavior. This was only to be expected in the Greco-Roman world where various forms of sexual license were common. Paul now reminds the Christians at Thessalonica that God’s will for their sanctification required abstinence from porneia (1 Thess 4:3, “sexual immorality” NIV). This Greek word and its cognates as used by Paul denote any kind of illegitimate—extramarital and unnatural—sexual intercourse or relationship...
       
   3.2. Sex, Self and Christ. For Paul sexual intercourse is not on a par with the satisfying of other natural appetites like eating. To that extent his approach is as inimical to the post-Christian West’s obsession with unbridled sexual gratification as it was to Corinthian licentiousness. Sexual intercourse is uniquely expressive of our whole being. “All other sins a person commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body” (1 Cor 6:18). To deal with a blatantly intolerable perversion of Christian freedom (unlike the subtler ascetic alternative), Paul applies his richly articulated concept of “body” (soma), which may mean—almost at one and the same time—a person’s physical nature (“the body is not meant for sexual license,” 1 Cor 6:13), the whole human self (“your bodies are members of Christ himself,” 1 Cor 6:15; “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit,” 1 Cor 6:19) and the church as Christ’s body... Undergirding such teaching lies Paul’s distinctive anthropology, in which the flesh, or body, is no mere external expression or instrument of the true person that resides in some inner essence (see Psychology). For Paul it is truer to say that a human being is a body rather than has a body. In the Corinthian context this is a way of speaking about a Christian both as a sexual being and as a being “in Christ,” a member of his church -body. Hence, when Paul declares porneia to be uniquely a sin against our own body (1 Cor 6:18), he is not referring merely to the misuse of our sexual organs. Nor is he distinguishing sexual sins on the grounds that drunkenness or gluttony, for example, involve things outside the body—drink and food in this case. He may be picking up a notion advanced by some libertine Corinthians, that nothing one does sexually or physically can touch the inner citadel of the soul. (Such sentiments are found among later Christian gnostics.) For Paul nothing could be further from the truth. Because sexual activity embodies the whole person, sinful union with a prostitute—or adultery or other extramarital intercourse—desecrates a Christian’s bodily union with Christ. “The association between Christ and the believer is regarded as just as close and physical as that between the two partners in the sex act” (Schweizer, 1065).

   3.3. Sex in Relationship. Paul cites Genesis 2:24 (“the two will become one flesh”) to demonstrate what is involved in the seemingly casual one-night stand with another woman; you become one body with her (1 Cor 6:16; note that Paul substitutes his own favorite soma for the Septuagint’s sarx. It is the peculiar dignity of the one-flesh union of heterosexual marriage, on the other hand, that not only is it quite compatible with spiritual union with the Lord (1 Cor 6:17), but also it expresses the mysterion (“mystery”) of the union between Christ and his church (Eph 5:31–32; 2 Cor 11:2). The analogy covers not merely reciprocal mutual love, respect and care but the union itself... But if 1 Corinthians 6 responds to an antinomian “permissiveness” current in Corinthian Christianity, 1 Corinthians 7 deals with issues reflecting a more ascetic streak. At the outset Paul cites a statement from the Corinthians’ letter (so most commentators agree), “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Cor 7:1; NIV margin, “not to have sexual relations with.” See Col 2:21–23 for a possible parallel). The teaching this evokes from Paul is concerned solely with marriage and sexual relations within marriage. The assertion Paul quotes almost certainly expresses the conviction of some Corinthian Christians that sexual activity between male and female, even if married (hence NIV’s rendering “good ... not to marry,” 1 Cor 7:1, is misleading), had no place in the Christian’s life. (Perhaps teaching such as 1 Cor 6:15–16 had been misunderstood as warranting this conclusion. See also 1 Tim 4:1–5 for a reaffirmation of God’s good creation of marriage.) The fact that Paul proceeds to speak only about marriage is highly significant: for him there is no acceptable context for sex except within marriage. Yet the issue is not marriage as such but sexual intercourse—or perhaps better still, marriage as inseparably entailing sexual relations... Marriage (i.e., monogamy) is needed and right because porneia as an outlet for sexuality is intolerable (1 Cor 7:2). The implication is clear: the satisfying of sexual desires is not wrong, and marriage is its appointed setting. (The parallels with 1 Thess 4:3–5 exclude the reduction of marriage to merely a cover for uncontrolled sexual gratification.) Moreover, sex is not a dispensable dimension of marriage; like responsible love and respect (cf. above on Eph 5), it is one of the mutual obligations of husband to wife and wife to husband (1 Cor 7:3). For within marriage neither partner retains sole ownership of his or her own body (1 Cor 7:4). Sex within marriage must exemplify what Paul teaches later in 1 Corinthians: “In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman” (1 Cor 11:11; see Man and Woman).

   3.5. A Place for Abstinence. From the perspective established by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:2–4, the issue is no longer “is sex (within marriage) ever good?” but “when, if ever, is abstinence from sex within marriage right?” Paul sets out three criteria: (1) mutual consent, (2) for a limited time only, and (3) for religious purposes (1 Cor 7:5). And even this provision for abstinence is a concession—for verse 7 (Paul’s recognition that singleness—involving abstinence—is possible by divine gift alone) suggests that the “concession” of verse 6 refers to verse 5, and not to verse 2–4. The underlying assumption is that by divine appointment marriage and sexual relations go together, as do singleness and abstinence from sex; what God has joined together, humans should not separate. Hence the concessionary character of verse 5, perhaps with the Corinthian ascetics particularly in mind.
   The teaching of this chapter so far obviously disallows an understanding of sexual intercourse as intended solely for procreation. Even if artificial means of contraception are not in view, the accent falls unambiguously on sexual relations as expressive of selfless mutuality between married partners, of their belonging in the Lord to each other, not to him- or herself.

   1 Corinthians 7:8–9 adds little to the picture painted so far. For reasons that Paul will spell out later, at 1 Corinthians 7:29–35, his preference is for the unmarried and widowed to remain so, like himself. But for those who lack the charisma of sex-free singleness, it is much better to marry than be consumed with inward desire—even, it seems, if that desire is controlled and not given vent in porneia

4. Conclusions.
The prevalent sexual license of Western society makes Paul’s teaching both peculiarly relevant—for it was addressed to Christians in a world in this respect not too dissimilar to ours—and painfully sharp. He allows no compromise of the restriction of sexual activity to (heterosexual) monogamous marriage. Such an ethic must seem almost utopian to our sex-besotted age, in which it appears at times that one’s identity is made to reside in one’s sexual organs and their untrammeled exercise. Paul espouses an altogether higher view of sex that could never allow it to be casual or promiscuous, simply because it is an act uniquely expressive of one’s whole being. From a Pauline perspective a cavalier freedom in sexual behavior can be bought only at the cost of trivializing the human person. His emphasis on mutuality, including sexual mutuality, within marriage—so marked an advance on the practice and precept of contemporary Hellenism and Judaism —is attractive in a day of increasing sexual violence and exaggerated insistence on individual sexual rights.
   And if for Paul the eschatological urgency accentuated the advantages in remaining unmarried—but only with God’s enabling charisma —he provides an example of a teacher on sexuality sensitive to differences of circumstances and persons. If his situation heightened the note of sexual discipline, it is arguable that it was in every way healthier—spiritually, psychologically, physically—than alternatives offered and promoted today."

I have some other sources on this which I may add later.

It seems to me almost 2000 years of Orthodox teaching is clearly in agreement with mainstream historiographical/philological scholarship on this. One occasionally sees the argument of the "Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin" thread advanced today, seeking to take some attested marginal reading as "the" meaning of the word and obscuring the ethical teaching of the scriptures and the Church; frankly having looked at a great deal of the major philological data (not only that of the sources above) I consider those holding similar positions to have their heads firmly embedded in the sands of ignorance and wishful thinking. I wouldn't recommend wagering one's eternity upon it :-)

And "acts420"'s response:

The problem with defining "porneia," hereafter "sexual immorality," by using cultural norms is that cultural norms change.  For instance, at one point in time many orthodox believed it was "sexual immorality" for clergy to have sex with their wives.  Did that make it actually immoral?  I would say no; those orthdox were wrong.

Jews will openly admit that the Old Testament never prohbits pre-wedding sex. They will honestly admit they rely only on cultural traditions for any rules against it.  Jewish researcher Ariel Scheib says, "The Bible never explicitly states a woman and man may not have sexual intercourse prior to marriage; therefore, no sanction was imposed for premarital sex, but it was considered a violation of custom (tradition)..." He cites as his sources Eisenberg, Ronald L. The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions. PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2004; Kolatch, Alfred J. The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989; Wigoder, Geoffrey , Ed. The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia. NY: Facts on File, 1992.

I prefer to define "sexual immorality" by what the Holy Scriptures have called sexual immorality, and by what the early Fathers called sexual immorality.  Premarital sex in the confines of courtship is never punished nor called immoral or sinful in Scripture nor, as far as I've been able to tell, in the early holy Fathers.

Which barely qualifies as academic (o.k. he quotes one researcher's position, and then provides part of that researcher's bibliography); and is mostly the same broad-stroke BS we've come to expect from him.  And he doesn't even bother to look at the terse, yet potentially devastating (if evidence to support the argument were ever posted in that thread) argument provided just above his in that thread, namely:

In semitic the term is Z-N-Y, and it means sex with other than your spouse, with no distinction between adultery, fornication and prostitution.

So he leaves us with a half argument and... moves on to more posts where he basically argues from silence.

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.

The rest of your post is useless. 

Btw: You don't need to defend those who argue poorly; the dismissal of his posting has nothing to do with his theological predisposition.  There are others who do a good job of directly addressing points directed at them (i.e. the aforementioned David Young, Keble, Ebor, etc.), who have survived and thrived for quite awhile on this forum (longer than most folks here).  He should take notes from them and their posting style before he continues here.  (Maybe you should, too.)

[Fr. George]

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.

LOL.  You obviously don't understand how this works...

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?

How can i answer this without fury? I can't so i won't attempt to.

Another LOL moment.  Admitting an inability to continue a discussion is the first step toward healing.

[FountainPen]

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?

How can i answer this without fury? I can't so i won't attempt to.

So you are clearly stating that you are either unwilling to or incapable or actually listening to anyone as they explain their reasoning to you?

Well, I think I'm going to go play Tic-Tac-Toe with Joshua, then!

I'd skip the Tic-Tac-Toe and settle down with a mug of hot tea and a book on English Grammar if i were you.

[LBK]

and a book on English Grammar if i were you.

Hoist by your own petard, sister. 

[FountainPen]

Btw: You don't need to defend those who argue poorly; the dismissal of his posting has nothing to do with his theological predisposition.  There are others who do a good job of directly addressing points directed at them (i.e. the aforementioned David Young, Keble, Ebor, etc.), who have survived and thrived for quite awhile on this forum (longer than most folks here).  He should take notes from them and their posting style before he continues here.  (Maybe you should, too.)

I better had take notes or shiver-my-British-timbers, i might become one of the growing number of 'muted' posters for not falling into line.

BTW: you don't need to attack those who choose to encourage another poster. Why ever that should bother you i have no idea.

[FountainPen]

and a book on English Grammar if i were you.

Hoist by your own petard, sister. 

Typo...huge difference. 

[FountainPen]

Another LOL moment.  Admitting an inability to continue a discussion is the first step toward healing.

I wasn't involved in the discussion. I merely interjected an encouraging comment to acts420.

Are you ready to get back to the discussion now and stop this silliness?

[PeterTheAleut]

Another LOL moment.  Admitting an inability to continue a discussion is the first step toward healing.

I wasn't involved in the discussion. I merely interjected an encouraging comment to acts420.

Are you ready to get back to the discussion now and stop this silliness?

Honestly, the silliness I see on this thread isn't coming from Fr. George.

[FountainPen]

Another LOL moment.  Admitting an inability to continue a discussion is the first step toward healing.

I wasn't involved in the discussion. I merely interjected an encouraging comment to acts420.

Are you ready to get back to the discussion now and stop this silliness?

Honestly, the silliness I see on this thread isn't coming from Fr. George.

Oh "Honestly"? Implying at other times you are less than honest? 

[LBK]

and a book on English Grammar if i were you.

Hoist by your own petard, sister. 

Typo...huge difference. 

Is not spelling a component of grammar? I'm old and ugly enough to have lived through the days of pen and ink.

[FountainPen]

and a book on English Grammar if i were you.

Hoist by your own petard, sister. 

Typo...huge difference. 

Is not spelling a component of grammar? I'm old and ugly enough to have lived through the days of pen and ink.

Of course it is.
However, a typo is simply an oversight not a lack of knowledge.

[LBK]

and a book on English Grammar if i were you.

Hoist by your own petard, sister. 

Typo...huge difference. 

Is not spelling a component of grammar? I'm old and ugly enough to have lived through the days of pen and ink.

Of course it is.
However, a typo is simply an oversight not a lack of knowledge.

I would have expected someone with your propensity for dismissive commentary and acid wit to be scrupulous in your attention to detail. 

[FountainPen]

and a book on English Grammar if i were you.

Hoist by your own petard, sister. 

Typo...huge difference. 

Is not spelling a component of grammar? I'm old and ugly enough to have lived through the days of pen and ink.

Of course it is.
However, a typo is simply an oversight not a lack of knowledge.

I would have expected someone with your propensity for dismissive commentary and acid wit to be scrupulous in your attention to detail. 

Alas, as much as i try, it behooves me to admit that, i am not perfect.

[FormerReformer]

Another LOL moment.  Admitting an inability to continue a discussion is the first step toward healing.

I wasn't involved in the discussion. I merely interjected an encouraging comment to acts420.

Are you ready to get back to the discussion now and stop this silliness?

Honestly, the silliness I see on this thread isn't coming from Fr. George.

Oh "Honestly"? Implying at other times you are less than honest? 

Is that what the word "honestly" implies? Hmmm, I am given a whole new insight in the translators of the KJV and their "Amen Amen" becoming "Verily, verily". Apparently they didn't believe Christ was the very fount of "veritas" beforehand.

[Riddikulus]

This thread has gone from the ridiculous to the cor blimey! 

[PeterTheAleut]

Another LOL moment.  Admitting an inability to continue a discussion is the first step toward healing.

I wasn't involved in the discussion. I merely interjected an encouraging comment to acts420.

Are you ready to get back to the discussion now and stop this silliness?

Honestly, the silliness I see on this thread isn't coming from Fr. George.

Oh "Honestly"? Implying at other times you are less than honest? 

Thus proving my point...

[Aindriú]

I'll put this in two ways.

Christian:
I think everyone could use a little humility, and discuss things in a manner of full consideration of the other's position.

Other:
How about everyone stop trying to prove their's is bigger, and chill the 3n98t out. If you can't answer a simple 49askn question without flopping your ego out, then why don't you just sit down.

[orthonorm]

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

Not really.

Actually the Orthodox response is rather underwhelming and rude.

Just the absolute errors in proof texting are embarrassing. As is the circle the wagon mentality. Where did the typical "rules" policing and the accompanying Latin phrases everyone here with their The Top 50 Fallacies: How to Spot Them and Name Them in Latin! love to spout off with, usually incorrectly, go?

Really, if you think Act420 is even in the same sport as Alfred, you are probably the one smoking something, not Acts420.

Will get back to the circle the wagon stuff. I love when folks take recourse to the "they", in this case, the "we".

For the record, I ain't in your non-personal collective.

[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.".

QFT

Not really.

Actually the Orthodox response is rather underwhelming and rude.

Just the absolute errors in proof texting are embarrassing. As is the circle the wagon mentality. Where did the typical "rules" policing and the accompanying Latin phrases everyone here with their The Top 50 Fallacies: How to Spot Them and Name Them in Latin! love to spout off with, usually incorrectly, go?

Really, if you think Act420 is even in the same sport as Alfred, you are probably the one smoking something, not Acts420.

Will get back to the circle the wagon stuff. I love when folks take recourse to the "they", in this case, the "we".

Didn't mention Alfred.

For the record, I ain't in your non-personal collective.

OK... what?

Nevermind. Don't care.

[orthonorm]

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

Not really.

Actually the Orthodox response is rather underwhelming and rude.

Just the absolute errors in proof texting are embarrassing. As is the circle the wagon mentality. Where did the typical "rules" policing and the accompanying Latin phrases everyone here with their The Top 50 Fallacies: How to Spot Them and Name Them in Latin! love to spout off with, usually incorrectly, go?

Really, if you think Act420 is even in the same sport as Alfred, you are probably the one smoking something, not Acts420.

Will get back to the circle the wagon stuff. I love when folks take recourse to the "they", in this case, the "we".

Didn't mention Alfred.

For the record, I ain't in your non-personal collective.

OK... what?

Nevermind. Don't care.

Who says I am responding to you?

[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.".

QFT

Not really.

Actually the Orthodox response is rather underwhelming and rude.

Just the absolute errors in proof texting are embarrassing. As is the circle the wagon mentality. Where did the typical "rules" policing and the accompanying Latin phrases everyone here with their The Top 50 Fallacies: How to Spot Them and Name Them in Latin! love to spout off with, usually incorrectly, go?

Really, if you think Act420 is even in the same sport as Alfred, you are probably the one smoking something, not Acts420.

Will get back to the circle the wagon stuff. I love when folks take recourse to the "they", in this case, the "we".

Didn't mention Alfred.

For the record, I ain't in your non-personal collective.

OK... what?

Nevermind. Don't care.

Who says I am responding to you?

The quote that agrees with the quote box around my post does.

[biro]

This thread has gone from the ridiculous to the cor blimey! 

Sure has!

[FormerReformer]

Didn't mention Alfred.

Hopefully you mean "within the context of the most current discussion on this thread" and not "ever in this thread".

[FormerReformer]

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

Not really.

Actually the Orthodox response is rather underwhelming and rude.

Just the absolute errors in proof texting are embarrassing. As is the circle the wagon mentality. Where did the typical "rules" policing and the accompanying Latin phrases everyone here with their The Top 50 Fallacies: How to Spot Them and Name Them in Latin! love to spout off with, usually incorrectly, go?

Really, if you think Act420 is even in the same sport as Alfred, you are probably the one smoking something, not Acts420.

Will get back to the circle the wagon stuff. I love when folks take recourse to the "they", in this case, the "we".

For the record, I ain't in your non-personal collective.

I beg to differ, sir. Not only have I been the paragon and epitome of politic, I believe the only time I ever use Latin in any argument is never to name a fallacy, occasionally apropos and everyday "English" usage (e.g. et cetera), and most often a horribly mangled version that would have Centurion Johnus Cleesius assigning me to paint the wall of Jerusalem hundreds of times over.

Furthermore, I have not smoked anything related to the "4" nor "20" category in quite some time.

In addition, I don't have even a little red wagon to put anything in, let alone a collection of larger wagons to circle.

Finally, you are in my collective if I say you're in my collective. Resistance is futile.

[Aindriú]

Didn't mention Alfred.

Hopefully you mean "within the context of the most current discussion on this thread" and not "ever in this thread".

You made me search the thread.

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

Alfred Persson 20 years ago?

Sure enough. Four months ago, back in October I said this.

[LBK]

Centurion Johnus Ioannes Cleesius

Fixed it for you.   (Gawd, it's tough being old ...)

[FormerReformer]

Centurion Johnus Ioannes Cleesius

Fixed it for you.   (Gawd, it's tough being old ...)

As long as I don't have to paint it a hundred times in twenty foot tall letters, I'm cool with that.

[FormerReformer]

Didn't mention Alfred.

Hopefully you mean "within the context of the most current discussion on this thread" and not "ever in this thread".

You made me search the thread.

Heh, that's okay, because apparently (from the context of your Persson reference, my Persson reference, and your claiming credit for the first Persson reference) neither one of us made our original Persson references in a thread that was this thread at the time.

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

Alfred Persson 20 years ago?

Sure enough. Four months ago, back in October I said this.

Here's a question- if I call myself "Alfred Persson" after recognizing certain Alfred traits, does that make it an instance of insult in the "first Persson"?

[LBK]

if I call myself "Alfred Persson" after recognizing certain Alfred traits, does that make it an instance of insult in the "first Persson"?

You have redeemed yourself, young Grasshopper. 

[Aindriú]

LOL

[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

Not really.

Actually the Orthodox response is rather underwhelming and rude.

Just the absolute errors in proof texting are embarrassing. As is the circle the wagon mentality. Where did the typical "rules" policing and the accompanying Latin phrases everyone here with their The Top 50 Fallacies: How to Spot Them and Name Them in Latin! love to spout off with, usually incorrectly, go?

Really, if you think Act420 is even in the same sport as Alfred, you are probably the one smoking something, not Acts420.

Will get back to the circle the wagon stuff. I love when folks take recourse to the "they", in this case, the "we".

For the record, I ain't in your non-personal collective.

I understand what you're saying orthonorm. I guess that folks (insert they or we as appropriate) get irritated about the scripture argument yet their beliefs are just as "unscriptural" as ours (if you'll forgive the comparison).

As for acts420 being alfred, no he's not because at least acts420 addresses something that someone else says.

PP

[Fr. George]

Btw: You don't need to defend those who argue poorly; the dismissal of his posting has nothing to do with his theological predisposition.  There are others who do a good job of directly addressing points directed at them (i.e. the aforementioned David Young, Keble, Ebor, etc.), who have survived and thrived for quite awhile on this forum (longer than most folks here).  He should take notes from them and their posting style before he continues here.  (Maybe you should, too.)

I better had take notes or shiver-my-British-timbers, i might become one of the growing number of 'muted' posters for not falling into line.

No one gets muted for "not falling into line."  If that were the case, we would have banned our atheists, agnostics, "Mathematicians," (not "practitioners of math," but "those who subscribe to math as a religion") and non-Orthodox long ago.

What will get you muted is complaining about moderation in public. Don't do it again.

- Fr. George, Global Moderator

[Melodist]

The Top 50 Fallacies: How to Spot Them and Name Them in Latin!

Are you referring to the ad hominem, or perssonal attack?

[vamrat]

This thread has gone from the ridiculous to the cor blimey! 

Please define "has gone from".

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Folks, this thread is all over the place and has produced heated and unnecessary exchanges. With your kind indulgence, I am giving it a recess for a while. Let's reconvene Monday, February 20,2012. Have a great weekend. second Chance

[acts420]

Thank you, serb1389.  Christ is among us! 

Please allow me to add a quick Post Script to my above reply to the philological argument (Reply #4).

P.S.
I can give more citations to relevant old testament authorities if necessary.  However, if this turns into a battle of the experts that will be a waste of time and will just serve to prove that premarital sex in the confines of courtship is never *clearly* punished nor called immoral or sinful in Scripture.  So it would be more efficient to agree on that point and stop now. 

There is no doubt among any of the "experts" regarding adultery, incest, prostitution, forced rape, man having sex with man as if man is a woman, sex during menstration, and others.  If I cannot point to a single passage that says "thou shalt wait until marriage to have sex" or anything close to its equivalent unless I point to an extremely debatable word with so many cultural traditions that could be used to define it over the last 5,000 years that not one single living person would agree with them all, then that says plenty for us to chew on.

Let me finish with this:  virginity is highly honored on the way and sex before marriage also.  Just because something is allowed does not make it smart spiritually nor physically.  God have mercy on us.

In Christ,
Acts420.com

[NicholasMyra]

Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Hmm.

So either Acts420 has outdone every scholar ever, every interpretation ever made,

Or he is wrong.

I'm not saying the former is impossible. It just ain't very likely.

The reason why the phrase "premarital sex" is not spelled out is because it was *taken for granted* by *every culture* of the time (it was also contained in adultery and porneia, for those who have ears to hear). There was no way that the folks making the rules wanted their women devalued (I mean commodity-wise) by having them lose their virginity before marriage. When a culture of that time wanted to insult another culture, they made up rumors that the other culture had temple prostitution or something. It was the ultimate diss, you guys can't keep your women in check. Greeks did it to the Babylonians, just read Herodotus.

It is the ad-hoc arguement of ad-hoc arguments from silence that there is some secret alternate interpretation that the r34l jews and r34l fathers had that nobody recorded. It is insane, and only the people who believe that freemason reptiles rule the world would even consider, for a moment, that it might possibly have the slightest merit.

[biro]

Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Hmm.

So either Acts420 has outdone every scholar ever, every interpretation ever made,

Or he is wrong.

I'm not saying the former is impossible. It just ain't very likely.

The reason why the phrase "premarital sex" is not spelled out is because it was *taken for granted* by *every culture* of the time (it was also contained in adultery and porneia, for those who have ears to hear). There was no way that the folks making the rules wanted their women devalued (I mean commodity-wise) by having them lose their virginity before marriage. When a culture of that time wanted to insult another culture, they made up rumors that the other culture had temple prostitution or something. It was the ultimate diss, you guys can't keep your women in check. Greeks did it to the Babylonians, just read Herodotus.

It is the ad-hoc arguement of ad-hoc arguments from silence that there is some secret alternate interpretation that the r34l jews and r34l fathers had that nobody recorded. It is insane, and only the people who believe that freemason reptiles rule the world would even consider, for a moment, that it might possibly have the slightest merit.

Of course. I doubt it'll matter to someone with his agenda, though.

[acts420]

NicholasMyra, Christ is among us.

Not every scholar in the known universe agrees with you.  Indeed many disagree with you.  However, when you ignore them (and all the evidence to the contrary of your position) it allows you to feel secure in your weak position.  Those who do disagree with you don't typically try to correct the likes of you.  I care for you.  That is the difference between I and them. I'm not trying to justify promiscuous behavior on my part nor anything of the sort, eve though many here accuse of it.  I'm not promiscuous.  Many accused Christ of being a drunkard and a glutton too because he brought the new Way, freedom from commandments and life in the Spirit.

I'm trying to get you to stop being a Pharisee because I love you, and I'm trying to get the church to be filled with less Pharisees because I love her.   I cited many sources above.  You ignored them all and repeated three times "every scholar in the known universe [disagrees]."  I'm sure that made you feel more confident.  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.  Besides those I cited, many others including the Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach agree with them.   As if I even need to cite another (and as if you won't just deny its existence anyway).... Boteach is the author of The Kosher Sutra, HarperOne Press, 2009. He says, "Many people are surprised to learn that the Torah does not prohibit premarital sex. I challenge you to find any passage in the Jewish scriptures that forbids a man from having consensual sexual relations with any woman he could legally marry. It's just not there! (..) This is not to suggest that Judaism approves of pre-marital sex or promiscuity. (..) Jewish law prohibits an unmarried, unrelated man and woman from (even) being alone long enough to have sexual relations. But these laws come from the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch (custom, tradition), not from the Torah."

So obviously  zenut (porneia) does not mean premarital sex according to him either.  If it did, then he would have to say the Torah prohibits sex before marriage since it prohibits zenut (porneia).  What's more, if premarital sex is a sin because cultural traditions frowned upon it, then it is also a sin to be alone with an unmarried woman for more then 60 seconds.  Is it? 

Remember the Pharisees?  That is the road you're heading down.  You wrote, "The reason why the phrase premarital sex is not spelled out is because it was taken for granted by every culture of the time".   Right.  So the culture needed it spelled out that adultery is a sin, and bestiality too, because 'who would've guessed that?'  However, sex with an unmarried woman... that is so obviously wrong no commandment was needed.  Yeah.  Listen to yourself deny both facts and common sense together.  It's incredible. 

It comes down to this:  cultures make all sorts of rules to pile them onto God's.  It is a human trait.  It has been this way since the beginning of time.  God's Word never condemns sex before marriage for an important reason.  He takes the approach of honoring virginity and sex in marriage instead.  To say premarital sex is immoral because virginity and marriage are honored would be like arguing oral sex between heterosexuals is immoral because God has only honored vaginal sex.  We're here to shine Christ's light, the Word, not our own rules. When we add our rules to God's we warp the light of Christ such that the world looks to us for the light but starts to see us instead. The goal should be perfect reflection of the Word in us, even if that reflection sometimes makes us uncomfortable. 

To say premarital sex is a sin puts you in a similar light as those Baptists who say it is a sin to drink alcohol.  God has never said sex it.  The Father has good reasons for doing things this way.  I'm sure you have good intentions for piling commands onto God's children.  God has better intentions for leaving them free.  If the Word says we're right but our culture or even our family says we're wrong, then we must listen to Christ say, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters... he cannot be my disciple."  Even if they or we have good intentions for making up our own rules, He has better intentions that we know nothing about. He must become more; we must become less. 

Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Acts 420,

Every scholar and source in the known universe.

Hmm.

So either Acts420 has outdone every scholar ever, every interpretation ever made,

Or he is wrong.

I'm not saying the former is impossible. It just ain't very likely.

The reason why the phrase "premarital sex" is not spelled out is because it was *taken for granted* by *every culture* of the time (it was also contained in adultery and porneia, for those who have ears to hear). There was no way that the folks making the rules wanted their women devalued (I mean commodity-wise) by having them lose their virginity before marriage. When a culture of that time wanted to insult another culture, they made up rumors that the other culture had temple prostitution or something. It was the ultimate diss, you guys can't keep your women in check. Greeks did it to the Babylonians, just read Herodotus.

It is the ad-hoc arguement of ad-hoc arguments from silence that there is some secret alternate interpretation that the r34l jews and r34l fathers had that nobody recorded. It is insane, and only the people who believe that freemason reptiles rule the world would even consider, for a moment, that it might possibly have the slightest merit.

[PeterTheAleut]

acts420, I notice you've really done nothing to address the textual arguments xariskai actually made in the OP of this thread with any arguments from equally authoritative scholarship. The only real arguments I've seen from you is "cultural norms change" and your continued argument from silence. Sorry, but those aren't the kinds of answers xariskai's arguments demand.

[acts420]

Saying the 6 works of scholarship I cited (in response to his 3) are not "equally authoritative" is just a cop out.  The plainly obvious fact is that Scripture clearly condemns many sexual acts ranging from obvious ones like adultery and bestiality to sex during menstruation.  It never condemns sex before marriage as a sin, no one is ever punished in Scripture for it, and the "authorities" that say porneia includes premarital sex rely on cultural traditions that also say being alone with a single woman is porneia.

That doesn't mean virginity and sex in marriage are not highly honored in Scripture.  Of course they are.  The Way the Father instills values in His children is what is different between the Pharisaical approach and the Word's approach.

acts420, I notice you've really done nothing to address the textual arguments xariskai actually made in the OP of this thread with any arguments from equally authoritative scholarship. The only real arguments I've seen from you is "cultural norms change" and your continued argument from silence. Sorry, but those aren't the kinds of answers xariskai's arguments demand.