OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 07:36:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Premarital Sex Is Not a Sin?  (Read 53059 times) Average Rating: 1
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #900 on: April 01, 2012, 05:10:37 PM »

Kicking poodles for pleasure is never explicitly condemned in Scripture, but it is still wrong.

We might need to split thread on this! Kicking poodles is NOT wrong, and probably sanctioned by God.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #901 on: April 01, 2012, 05:30:15 PM »

Kicking poodles for pleasure is never explicitly condemned in Scripture, but it is still wrong.

We might need to split thread on this! Kicking poodles is NOT wrong, and probably sanctioned by God.

Exactly.

Has kicking poodles been condemned in the Bible? No.
Has kicking poodles been condemned at a Council? No.
Has kicking poodles been condemned by a Church Father? No.
Has any respected modern theologian wrote a treatise or book--or even an article in a popular level magazine--condemning kicking poodles? No.

So where does this idea that kicking poodles is wrong come from? Liberals. That's who. Ever hear Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity condemn it? No. It's bleeding heart, politically correct liberals.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #902 on: April 01, 2012, 05:49:14 PM »

lmao
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #903 on: April 01, 2012, 06:08:39 PM »

As I happen to think that dogs are one of God's greatest gifts to humans, I cannot abide the direction this thread is taking. I realize why you are doing this and I do not blame you. Nonetheless, it is the final nail on the coffin of this thread. All the previous nails having been driven onto the lid by the endless loop of unproductive argumentation, I hereby proclaim that the subject is exhausted and this thread closed until after the Bright Week. I will entertain unlocking it if someone PMs me and gives a good reason to to reopen it. Thanks, Second Chance
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #904 on: April 19, 2012, 05:33:11 PM »

This topic is unlocked as the OP desires the opportunity to reply to couple of posters. However, please be forewarned that I think the topic has been exhausted and will be locked permanently if old arguments are rehashed. Second Chance
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #905 on: April 19, 2012, 07:46:01 PM »

Your name seems so fitting right now.
Logged


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

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #906 on: April 19, 2012, 10:14:00 PM »

I think that premarital sex is sinful because it divorces the spiritual and physical aspects of human union and love.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #907 on: April 19, 2012, 10:34:05 PM »

I think that premarital sex is sinful because it divorces the spiritual and physical aspects of human union and love.

This.
Logged

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
jewish voice
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 559



« Reply #908 on: April 19, 2012, 11:33:39 PM »

I don't think it is but I'm not Orthodox yet to give their point of view on the subject.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,968


When in doubt, you lack the proper φρόνημα


« Reply #909 on: May 02, 2012, 01:11:09 PM »

Fr. Thomas Hopko's latest podcast on "Radical Monogamy" on Ancient Faith Radio:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/radical_monogamy
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
amartin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Apostolic Quakerism/Hesychasm/KriyaYoga
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 127


« Reply #910 on: May 02, 2012, 09:36:21 PM »

In the true religion, you can have sex but keep in mind that too much physical pleasures separates the psyche from God.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #911 on: May 02, 2012, 09:37:29 PM »

In the true religion, you can have sex but keep in mind that too much physical pleasures separates the psyche from God.

The 'true religion' being a cult in Oregon.   Huh
Logged

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
amartin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Apostolic Quakerism/Hesychasm/KriyaYoga
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 127


« Reply #912 on: May 02, 2012, 09:39:58 PM »

In the true religion, you can have sex but keep in mind that too much physical pleasures separates the psyche from God.

The 'true religion' being a cult in Oregon.   Huh

Oregon? I wouldn't know. But the true religion is universal in scope and comprises the members of any religion that are on the spiritual path.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #913 on: May 02, 2012, 09:40:47 PM »

In the true religion, you can have sex but keep in mind that too much physical pleasures separates the psyche from God.

The 'true religion' being a cult in Oregon.   Huh

Oregon? I wouldn't know. But the true religion is universal in scope and comprises the members of any religion that are on the spiritual path.

Uh, no, it doesn't.
Logged

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,454


WWW
« Reply #914 on: May 02, 2012, 09:48:15 PM »

In the true religion, you can have sex but keep in mind that too much physical pleasures separates the psyche from God.

Would that include riding roller coasters?  How would the physical thrill of riding a roller coaster separate the psyche from God?   Huh
Logged
just_some_guy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 33


« Reply #915 on: August 11, 2012, 08:00:46 AM »

Hi all, Im back (again)
been offline for a while now (not just this forum) and have had plenty of time to think.

Judging from what I have read on this forum I have come to the following conclutions:

the Bible does NOT forbid premarital sex.
this is based on no bible verse being brought forward that directly speaks against premarital sex (and vauge grouping references like illicit/sinful/immoral have in turn been rejected due to the fact that every other form of illicit sexual activity is spelled out, word for word, somewhere else in the bible. even as far as having sex with your Father's sibling's spouse [Leviticus 18])

the Orthodox Church DOES forbid premarital sex.
the Orthodox Church is very clear on their stance here. Premarital sex is a sin. Period.

Conclution:
if you follow the Orthodox Church, and do what it says because what is says is the right thing to do (or so they say). then clearly premarital sex is a sin and should not be conducted.
However, if instead you follow what the Bible says, as a guide and reference to the root of all Christian denominations. then premarital sex is still allowed.

so personally, I know what Im going with. but for everyone else, if you believe the Church has it right... then who am I to say you have to follow the Bible just because I do?

for the last time (really this time)
signed
Just_Some_Guy
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #916 on: August 11, 2012, 08:40:12 AM »

"When Jesus said "sexual immorality" in regard to acts other than a married man and woman, he didn't include premarital sex. 'Cause that would seriously cut down on my pr0n time."
Logged


I'm going to need this.
WeldeMikael
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 506


« Reply #917 on: August 11, 2012, 09:24:30 AM »

 Cheesy
Logged
Pan Michał
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Posts: 477



« Reply #918 on: August 11, 2012, 09:38:48 AM »

Need a hand? Wait... Nevermind...
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #919 on: August 11, 2012, 11:22:10 AM »

In the end, we will face God and answer for what we have done.

That includes self-indulgence via purposeful misinterpretation.

There's a world of difference between "I want to do this even though I know it is wrong" and "I want to do this and it isn't wrong".  Only one can be easily repented of.  The other requires a great deal more work...
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #920 on: August 11, 2012, 11:35:27 AM »

Penalty for a girl having pre-marital sex in Old Testament times? She'd get stoned to death. (see for example Deut. 22) Penalty for pre-marital sex in 21st century America? You need to rationalize and justify your sinfulness to anonymous people on discussion boards. Things have changed quite a bit.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #921 on: August 11, 2012, 11:50:38 AM »

+1 ✔

Penalty for a girl having pre-marital sex in Old Testament times? She'd get stoned to death. (see for example Deut. 22) Penalty for pre-marital sex in 21st century America? You need to rationalize and justify your sinfulness to anonymous people on discussion boards. Things have changed quite a bit.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #922 on: August 11, 2012, 01:07:12 PM »

+1 ✔

Penalty for a girl having pre-marital sex in Old Testament times? She'd get stoned to death. (see for example Deut. 22) Penalty for pre-marital sex in 21st century America? You need to rationalize and justify your sinfulness to anonymous people on discussion boards. Things have changed quite a bit.
+2
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Posts: 477



« Reply #923 on: August 11, 2012, 02:14:54 PM »

Penalty for a girl having pre-marital sex in Old Testament times? She'd get stoned to death. (see for example Deut. 22) Penalty for pre-marital sex in 21st century America? You need to rationalize and justify your sinfulness to anonymous people on discussion boards. Things have changed quite a bit.

Although I know quite a few stoned Americans and they seem to like it that way.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 02:15:11 PM by Pan Michał » Logged
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #924 on: December 06, 2012, 10:12:15 PM »

Well, I think you were trolling, especially since you wrote this:

I want to answer this question because God forbid I ever teach my children lies about the sinfulness of premarital sex and destroy their future marriages just as mine was destroyed.

You know what the Orthodox Church teaches.  You have posted here with your mind already made up, meaning that you already have all the 'right' information.  Nothing of what you are posting is really seeking the truth, but rather confirmation of what you believed before hand, which you already knew to be "unique beliefs" which you list in your initial post.  Again, you know that what you are choosing to believe is contrary to the collective witness of the Church.

No matter how many quotes you may find or not find, your beliefs are not compatable with the Church, which was the original goal of your post.  You may satisfy your need for affirmation (the first part of your stated intention), but this will not lead to your admission into the Church (the second part of your stated intention).

Thus, it is something of a troll.  I think you might very well enjoy the fact that no one is answering your questions to your standards, though you still have not engaged much of what has been offered to you.  So, it smells like a troll rather than a genuine search for the truth.


Just because I had come to some conclusions before coming here doesn't mean I'm a troll either.  I'm here to test my conclusions in the fire that (I was hoping) is Orthodox Christian's knowledge of early Christianity.  Thankfully, after a year of waiting, I've finally gotten some early quotes that will help me explore this issue more.

Yes, I had decided that premarital sex probably wasn't a sin based on Scripture.  Nonetheless, I came here because not only am I open to converting to Orthodoxy, I'm open to converting my mind on the sex issue as well.  I'm still exploring it, and that is why I wanted help from early Father quotes.

Okay... so you think I'm trolling.  I think you're trolling because you are calling out a guy who has come to the "convert questions" section, obviously hurting from being taught lies by Baptists and from past relationship problems, and are implying he is not genuine and is a troll.  So look in the mirror.


Your situation is tragic, but I don't think you can make an argument from your experience that premarital sex during 'courtship' (an institution not described in the Bible, written in a time when most marriages were arranged) is all that helpful.  The rise in extra-marital sex coincides with the divorce rate.  Statistics are against you on this one, laying aside the teachings of the Church.



As far as the statistics, I've already cited a study in this thread showing that the divorce rate for couples that slept with one another before and after marriage remains the same as for couples that abstained before marriage.  Regardless though, any study can be manipulated.  I'm not here to find out how helpful or unhelpful premarital sex in courtship is.  I already know how helpful it would've been in my experience.  I'm here to find out if it is truly a *sin*, taught as such from the beginning of Christianity, or if it is a tradition that slipped into Christian culture a bit later.



The Church is not making people unhappy.  The world is making itself unhappy seeking its own ends.

Living together, 'hooking up' and all the rest goes on outside the Church, and divorce and misery are aplenty.  You are not a fool, you can see with your own eyes.

The real problem is that you worked very hard to play by 'the rules' and it didn't work out.  That happens a lot, I'm afraid.  It is called the Cross.  Perhaps your Cross was to bear a marriage that was sexually unhappy.  That happens quite a bit, I'm sorry to say, but mostly because the expectations of both parties are way off from one another.

So, what happens if you sleep with a woman and find her 'amazing,' and then she has a car accident and is left paralyzed or deformed?  What then?  Would you divorce her?  Search the Fathers now and see what you will find.


No, I wouldn't divorce my wife if she got paralyzed.  Do  you think I'm a monster simply because I suspect Christians may be allowed to follow the model of courtship celebrated in the Song of Solomon?  Lord have mercy.  




Your story is as tragic as it is common.  I am not belittling you, but pointing out that sex is not a happy topic even for the most free amongst us.



Sex is a happy topic for many people I know, and especially for many couples I know who had sex during their courtship and immediately learned that they thoroughly enjoyed sex with their partner.  I, instead, waited for marriage and immediately learned that neither of us enjoyed sex with the other one (and never would, for 4 years).


No matter how many Patristic sources you read, this thread will bring you no closer to the Church until you drop your beliefs and come in 'naked' of your assumptions and presumptions.  If you keep them and have no intention of changing based on what you find next, then this is all just a big troll where you can dangle bait and then say, 'No, the Bible I read doesn't say that!'


Ah... I see... so, I won't find the truth until I blindly accept everything you say.  This is because you decided to accept everything the people before you said (and so on and so forth for hundreds of years), and you feel you have the truth in this matter.  

No thanks, Father.  Been there, done that.  It was called being a Baptist.  God gave me eyes and ears of my own for a reason.  

There was a time when orthodox clergy were bought and sold on the open market and no less corrupt than many Protestant clergy have been in the past.  You claim that doctrine itself was never corrupted.  Well... that is an interesting claim.  Nonetheless, I'm going to put your doctrine to the test, and if I find it lacking support in the Scriptures and the early Fathers, and if the Spirit leads me to instead believe what I read in his Word and see testified to by the ancient Fathers... then I simply will not believe you and your traditions.  If you feel more comfortable closing your eyes and ears and letting the generation before you decide for you what you must believe to be pleasing to God... I wish you the best with that.

I won't be responding to posts here for a little while.  I'm going to explore the quotes from the early Fathers that were (finally) provided for me, and see what I find.

Thank you again to everyone who has been helping me and praying for me.  May God guide all of us along the Way, toward the Truth, that we may live the Life he has for us.


here is a little advice from a confused agnostic orthodox christian ( don't ask me why I call myself agnostic orthodox christian.) My life is a mystery. Take the confused part literally though.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is this. Instead of debating what is true and what isn't. do what your conscience is telling you. If you're wrong, then you're wrong. But regardless, God will be the judge. Not man. And as far as I am concerned. God who knows man's heart, knows yours as well. And will take everything that he finds there into account. Including your intentions. No matter what they are. He will decide your salvation or your damnation. Not man. He created you. He gave his only begotten son for you. He will Judge. We poor humans have no business. I also suggest studying christianity in general. Begin by studying history of christian cultures. Then go on to other stuff regarding it. At least that way you will not be depending on anyone but God himself and your studies to guide you.
I hope I helped. I am one of the lost ones though. So please don't take my words at face value. Put them to test first. I don't want to be the reason of your fall if you make the wrong choice. But I sure will follow this advice for myself, now that I am thinking about it.
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #925 on: December 06, 2012, 10:16:38 PM »

Hi all, Im back (again)
been offline for a while now (not just this forum) and have had plenty of time to think.

Judging from what I have read on this forum I have come to the following conclutions:

the Bible does NOT forbid premarital sex.
this is based on no bible verse being brought forward that directly speaks against premarital sex (and vauge grouping references like illicit/sinful/immoral have in turn been rejected due to the fact that every other form of illicit sexual activity is spelled out, word for word, somewhere else in the bible. even as far as having sex with your Father's sibling's spouse [Leviticus 18])

the Orthodox Church DOES forbid premarital sex.
the Orthodox Church is very clear on their stance here. Premarital sex is a sin. Period.

Conclution:
if you follow the Orthodox Church, and do what it says because what is says is the right thing to do (or so they say). then clearly premarital sex is a sin and should not be conducted.
However, if instead you follow what the Bible says, as a guide and reference to the root of all Christian denominations. then premarital sex is still allowed.

so personally, I know what Im going with. but for everyone else, if you believe the Church has it right... then who am I to say you have to follow the Bible just because I do?

for the last time (really this time)
signed
Just_Some_Guy

what do you follow? church or the bible which is a part of the church? that sounds weird I know. But please tell me. And what is your denomination?
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,646


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #926 on: December 07, 2012, 03:25:50 AM »

Tweety, you're talking to people who no longer post here (and haven't posted here in several months). I don't think they're going to read your replies.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 03:26:33 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #927 on: December 07, 2012, 03:29:06 AM »

Agnostic Orthodox Christian?  I have no idea how that works.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,738


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #928 on: December 07, 2012, 05:20:35 AM »

Still to this day no one has convinced me that fornication is explicitely condemned in the Bible. There is no escaping the fact that the definition of Porneai--according to Strong's concordance--vaguely means "sexually immoral"--mostly being associated with prostitution. How do we know that fornication is considered "sexually immoral"? It just pushes the question back a step. I know that in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, the word did refer to fornication, but we don't use that, we go by the Septuagint--which, does not mention fornication as all as far as I am concerned.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #929 on: December 07, 2012, 05:30:39 AM »

Penalty for a girl having pre-marital sex in Old Testament times? She'd get stoned to death. (see for example Deut. 22) Penalty for pre-marital sex in 21st century America? You need to rationalize and justify your sinfulness to anonymous people on discussion boards. Things have changed quite a bit.
Nah. You can just have an abortion to justify having sex.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #930 on: December 07, 2012, 05:50:33 AM »

Still to this day no one has convinced me that fornication is explicitely condemned in the Bible. There is no escaping the fact that the definition of Porneai--according to Strong's concordance--vaguely means "sexually immoral"--mostly being associated with prostitution. How do we know that fornication is considered "sexually immoral"? It just pushes the question back a step. I know that in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, the word did refer to fornication, but we don't use that, we go by the Septuagint--which, does not mention fornication as all as far as I am concerned.
It may have something to do with the fact you do not want to be convinced.  You are focusing on one specific to justify a desire rather than the whole of scripture to compare and contrast.  But, alas, this is your choice.  I just hope you make the right one.
Logged
Didymus
Peace and grace.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: HG Coptic Bishop Anba Daniel of Sydney
Posts: 563


St. Thomas Didymus the Apostle of India


« Reply #931 on: December 07, 2012, 07:34:54 AM »

Kicking poodles for pleasure is never explicitly condemned in Scripture, but it is still wrong.

We might need to split thread on this! Kicking poodles is NOT wrong, and probably sanctioned by God.

Exactly.

Has kicking poodles been condemned in the Bible? No.
Has kicking poodles been condemned at a Council? No.
Has kicking poodles been condemned by a Church Father? No.
Has any respected modern theologian wrote a treatise or book--or even an article in a popular level magazine--condemning kicking poodles? No.

So where does this idea that kicking poodles is wrong come from? Liberals. That's who. Ever hear Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity condemn it? No. It's bleeding heart, politically correct liberals.

Seems I'm currently considering what the topic of my doctoral thesis should be, perhaps I may just have to contemplate the value of making the 'theological implications of kicking poodles' the topic  Wink
Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime.
...because I am blind and yet I see.
Ashman618
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 504



« Reply #932 on: December 07, 2012, 11:38:42 AM »

Is extraterrestrial sex a sin? Im serious about this  Cool
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #933 on: December 07, 2012, 11:50:58 AM »

Is extraterrestrial sex a sin? Im serious about this  Cool
Not unless its wrapped in tinfoil
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #934 on: December 07, 2012, 12:01:47 PM »

Agnostic Orthodox Christian?  I have no idea how that works.

I mentioned, the words "don't ask". What letter do you not understand? it's a weird long story.
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,820



« Reply #935 on: December 07, 2012, 12:54:32 PM »

Agnostic Orthodox Christian?  I have no idea how that works.

Quite simple actually, all of them are words with a Greek root.  Agnostic = doesn't know.  Orthodox = correct teaching.  Christian (Kristianoi?) = Follower of Christ.

So the sentence translates to - Doesn't know what the correct teachings of the followers of Christ are.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,646


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #936 on: December 07, 2012, 02:16:02 PM »

Agnostic Orthodox Christian?  I have no idea how that works.

I mentioned, the words "don't ask". What letter do you not understand? it's a weird long story.
If you don't want us to ask, then don't tell.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #937 on: December 07, 2012, 06:11:07 PM »

Agnostic Orthodox Christian?  I have no idea how that works.

I mentioned, the words "don't ask". What letter do you not understand? it's a weird long story.
I didn't ask, I made a statement.  The story is yours only to share if you desire.  I just find it interesting how people put words together to make a point or statement of some kind when the words fit like a square peg in a round hole.  You are not the only one who does this, so please do not think I am highlighting you.  There are many concepts people use this approach.  I just dont understand it is all.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #938 on: December 07, 2012, 06:12:23 PM »

Agnostic Orthodox Christian?  I have no idea how that works.

Quite simple actually, all of them are words with a Greek root.  Agnostic = doesn't know.  Orthodox = correct teaching.  Christian (Kristianoi?) = Follower of Christ.

So the sentence translates to - Doesn't know what the correct teachings of the followers of Christ are.

Hmm, that is a good way to translate.
Logged
tweety234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Ask the Answer
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 628



« Reply #939 on: December 07, 2012, 06:31:21 PM »

Agnostic Orthodox Christian?  I have no idea how that works.

Quite simple actually, all of them are words with a Greek root.  Agnostic = doesn't know.  Orthodox = correct teaching.  Christian (Kristianoi?) = Follower of Christ.

So the sentence translates to - Doesn't know what the correct teachings of the followers of Christ are.

no dear,
agnostic mean believer of the unknown. and orthodox christian means exactly that. In other words, I believe in the unknown which happens to be met in jesus.
Logged

“God has no religion.”
― Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #940 on: December 08, 2012, 01:44:36 AM »

Remember it's not premarital sex if you don't plan on getting married.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #941 on: December 08, 2012, 02:40:04 AM »

Remember it's not premarital sex if you don't plan on getting married.

I realize this was in jest, but I still feel the need to point out it's inaccurate.
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,409


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #942 on: December 08, 2012, 03:19:43 AM »

Still to this day no one has convinced me that fornication is explicitely condemned in the Bible. There is no escaping the fact that the definition of Porneai--according to Strong's concordance--vaguely means "sexually immoral"--mostly being associated with prostitution. How do we know that fornication is considered "sexually immoral"? It just pushes the question back a step. I know that in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, the word did refer to fornication, but we don't use that, we go by the Septuagint--which, does not mention fornication as all as far as I am concerned.

If you're looking at Strong's, though it is not the most authoritative source, it indeed defines porneia as fornication, as do ALL the major lexicons and dictionaries.



Google might provide a crumb of comfort to those who prefer dissenting opinion, but the fact remains that such is extremely *marginal* and in opposition to a genuinely overwhelming scholarly consensus to the contrary.

I cannot help but remain completely unimpressed by what has passed for counterargument in this thread. If as the NT asserts our eternity might ride on avoiding or embracing porneia (references in Kittel below), given the scholarly consensus placing fornication firmly within its semantic domain, I would not personally wager my spiritual health or eternal destiny on a fringe alternative that finds representation in no major mainstream resource whatsoever.

When used, as it often is, in its literal sense (as opposed to figurative usage for things like spiritual idolatry) porneia can be used of more than fornication, but not less.

Opening multiple major lexicons in Bibleworks we also find porneia as fornication:


TDNT (F. Hauck and S. Schulz, “porneia,” in Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VI, pp. 579–595) also defines porneia as fornication:

"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 that 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."

=========
similarly DNTT defines porneia as fornication (H. Reisser, “porneia,” in Colin Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1.497–501:

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 2:8) 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; 10:8), 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."

=========

...and also TDOT defines zanah as fornication, which is born out by the LXX translation as porneia (S. Erlandsson, "Zanah," in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. IV, p. 99ff. which explores variations of the root zny/win Heb, Aramaic dialects (Jewish Aramaic, Samaritan, Syriac, Mandean), as well as Arabic (zana) and Ethiopic, Akkadian, etc.):

Quote from: Erlandsson, Zanah/TDOT
"The ptcp. xonah or ishshah zonah designates a woman who has sexual intercourse with somebody with whom she does not have a formal covenant relationship. Any sexual relationship of a woman outside the marriage bond or without a formal union is termed fornication. When there is already a formal union and the sexual association is formed outside of that union, sanah becomes synonymous with ni'eph, commit adultery (ni'eph being thus a narrower term than zanah... The laws regulate sexual behavior precisely. When sexual intercourse is initiated before a marriage contract has been sealed and neither of the parties is already married, the man must marry the woman and ay not divorce her (Dt 22:28f.) If a woman has a formal partner, i.e is betrothed or married, but nevertheless of her own free will has intercourse with another man, she must suffer capital punishment (Dt. 22:22-27). If a man has a sexual relationship with the wife of another man, he likewise must suffer capital punishment... All sexual intercourse is to be set within a formal relationship. If this view is applied to the relationship between Israel and Yahweh, it follows that all worship of God must take place within the formal relationship of the covenant, in accordance with the covenant precepts (mishpatim debharim) of Yahweh... When Num 25:1 states that Israel committed fornication with (zanah 'el) the daughters of Moab, it is because zanah here refers to apostasy from the covenant expressed in the form of intercourse with Moabite women..." S. Erlandsson, "Zanah," in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. IV, pp. 99ff.

=========

...cf. also DPL (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."

Quote from: Acts420
I've seen a lot of places where translators pick "fornication" more out of a desire to put forth their personal beliefs than out of a desire to be as faithful as possible to the original language.
It's easy to assert something like this with no actual demonstration or evidence. Perhaps instead translators use the word fornication for porneia because every major scholarly resource places it within the semantic domain of porneia.

[note to mods: I unintentionally posted this in another thread meaning to place it in this one as the original quote is from this thread. Feel free to remove my post in the other thread. -Thx]

« Last Edit: December 08, 2012, 03:24:45 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #943 on: December 08, 2012, 03:21:17 AM »

Wow!  Resurrection of threads AND cloning of posts!  This is amazing!
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,409


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #944 on: December 08, 2012, 03:27:16 AM »

Wow!  Resurrection of threads AND cloning of posts!  This is amazing!
Resurrection and recapitulation on oc.net who would have thunk it?  Wink
Logged

Silly Stars
Tags: premarital sex sin 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.159 seconds with 73 queries.