"Porneia" and Fornication?

[JamesR]

Probably a bit overdone, but I am having trouble understanding something. People oftentimes quote passages in the New Testament in condemnation of 'fornication'--that is, umarried sexual relations. But how accurate is that really? I am convinced that nowhere in the Bible directly condemns fornication. I looked up the word--which is "porneia"--and in Strong's concordance, it just tranlates to 'sexually immoral', but no further clarification is given. The OSB passage commentary states that porneia/'sexually immoral' originally just referred to prostitution, but that only later it came to include everything else. So does the New Testament really specifically condemn fornication?

Likewise, I do not see a condemnation for fornication in the Old Testament either. There are only commandments against adultery--that is, having sex with someone OTHER than your spouse. But what about when two people are not married at all and have sex? The commandment doesn't apply to this. The CLOSEST thing I see that even resembles fornication is a part in the Old Testament (can't remember the exact location) which states that if an unmarried man seduces an unmarried woman and they have sex, then they were to be married. And also, doesn't Song of Solomon describe people as having sex during their courting period before they were married? I don't see a convincing argument against fornication. Yet, for some reason, the Church still condemns it via Canon. Is it possible that the Church simply messed up?

Likewise, what exactly was marriage considered during the time period that the scriptures were married? I imagine that this might play a vital part in understanding this topic further.

[Sinful Hypocrite]

Adultery is any sexual activity without marriage .

Jesus also went farther when he said even looking at another with lustful thoughts is adultery.


<< Matthew 5:28 >>

New International Version (©1984)
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

[ialmisry]

Probably a bit overdone, but I am having trouble understanding something. People oftentimes quote passages in the New Testament in condemnation of 'fornication'--that is, umarried sexual relations. But how accurate is that really? I am convinced that nowhere in the Bible directly condemns fornication. I looked up the word--which is "porneia"--and in Strong's concordance, it just tranlates to 'sexually immoral', but no further clarification is given. The OSB passage commentary states that porneia/'sexually immoral' originally just referred to prostitution, but that only later it came to include everything else. So does the New Testament really specifically condemn fornication?

Likewise, I do not see a condemnation for fornication in the Old Testament either. There are only commandments against adultery--that is, having sex with someone OTHER than your spouse. But what about when two people are not married at all and have sex? The commandment doesn't apply to this. The CLOSEST thing I see that even resembles fornication is a part in the Old Testament (can't remember the exact location) which states that if an unmarried man seduces an unmarried woman and they have sex, then they were to be married. And also, doesn't Song of Solomon describe people as having sex during their courting period before they were married? I don't see a convincing argument against fornication. Yet, for some reason, the Church still condemns it via Canon. Is it possible that the Church simply messed up?

Likewise, what exactly was marriage considered during the time period that the scriptures were married? I imagine that this might play a vital part in understanding this topic further.

The Semitic term z-n-h basically covers any and all sex not with your spouse.

I can't look it up right now, but the OT also mandates a woman being executed if on the wedding night she proves not to be a virgin.

The Song of Solomon is poetry, which means not literal.  Betrothal was a stage of marriage, where sex was allowed-a betrothal could not be called off, just by divorce (hence Matthew's account of St. Joseph's quandry).

St. Paul tell us to take a wife in an honorable way "not like the heathen, who do not know God."  Screwing around doesn't make the grade.

[JamesR]

The Semitic term z-n-h basically covers any and all sex not with your spouse.

Well what about when people had sex with their servants and concubines? God didn't condemn Abraham for conceiving Esau with a servant girl. Does the term really cover 'any and all sex' not with your spouse? And what was a 'spouse' considered? Would two people just cohabitating be considered married if they stayed committed?

[rakovsky]

The Semitic term z-n-h basically covers any and all sex not with your spouse.

Well what about when people had sex with their servants and concubines? God didn't condemn Abraham for conceiving Esau with a servant girl. Does the term really cover 'any and all sex' not with your spouse? And what was a 'spouse' considered? Would two people just cohabitating be considered married if they stayed committed?

I think one can make alot of alternate interpretations, and there is a group of "Libertine Christians" that claim sex before marriage isn't unChristian. They claimed that "fornication" actually meant other bad sexual acts, rather than sex before marriage. I remember looking into this and that I found it persuasive, until I found a quote by Jesus saying basically that sex between two people who are not married to eachother was bad. It may have been the one posted earlier:

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

Granted, in the above quote one could say that this refers to looking at married women because it specifies "adultery", rather than "fornication." Yet it doesn't specify "married woman." Perhaps it was another quote by Jesus- I don't remember.

What do you think about this quote? Is there room for different interpretations?

[ialmisry]

The Semitic term z-n-h basically covers any and all sex not with your spouse.

Well what about when people had sex with their servants and concubines? God didn't condemn Abraham for conceiving Esau with a servant girl. Does the term really cover 'any and all sex' not with your spouse? And what was a 'spouse' considered? Would two people just cohabitating be considered married if they stayed committed?

Concubine is a sub-species of wife (under the laws of the time, that is).

Abraham conceived Ishmael by a servant girl (the laws of the time allowed surrogates that way, and specified IIRC that it had to be the wife's servant).

People weren't allowed to be just cohabitating without being married.  For one thing, a woman had to pass from her father to her husband for that to happen.

[FormerReformer]

Well what about when people had sex with their servants and concubines? God didn't condemn Abraham for conceiving Esau with a servant girl.

I would certainly hope not! For God to condemn Abraham for something like that would have required an egregious mistake on God's part- Esau's mother was most definitely NOT a servant girl, and Abraham was most definitely NOT the one responsible for his conception.

[JamesR]

All right, thanks to Isa I am fully convinced about fornication now. But one more question, why did we have to become monogamous? That seems entirely foreign to human nature.

[orthonorm]

There was a poster around for a while who got run off over this question although his arguments were rather sound and near yours, but stated a bit more exhaustively.

Frankly, other than "tradition", no decent argument was offered.

He was an interesting fellow.

And for a people who pretty much had rules for everything, the fact they didn't cover this shows that it wasn't a problem.

Probably not because they were absolutely permissive about it, but pragmatically so.

Arguably, cause those who did engage in such acts and the woman got pregnant were forced into a stone-thrown marriage.

[orthonorm]

The Semitic term z-n-h basically covers any and all sex not with your spouse.

So the Bible(tm) is in Greek until it is inconvenient, then it is in Hebrew?

[NicholasMyra]

All right, thanks to Isa I am fully convinced about fornication now. But one more question, why did we have to become monogamous? That seems entirely foreign to human nature.

James, anthropological/paleoanthropological evidence suggests that at a very early point, hominids were serial monogamous. So mating for life is not as far of a stretch as you imply.

We had to become monogamous because perfect love does not bear the seed of destruction.

[orthonorm]

All right, thanks to Isa I am fully convinced about fornication now. But one more question, why did we have to become monogamous? That seems entirely foreign to human nature.

James, anthropological/paleoanthropological evidence suggests that at a very early point, hominids were serial monogamous. So mating for life is not as far of a stretch as you imply.

We had to become monogamous because perfect love does not bear the seed of destruction.

And most experience has shown once procreation is taken out of the mix for sex, we are in fact serially monogamous and often even when procreation isn't. Divorce after the kids are grown up enough and the like.

[genesisone]

The Semitic term z-n-h basically covers any and all sex not with your spouse.

Well what about when people had sex with their servants and concubines? God didn't condemn Abraham for conceiving Esau with a servant girl. Does the term really cover 'any and all sex' not with your spouse? And what was a 'spouse' considered? Would two people just cohabitating be considered married if they stayed committed?

Actually, JamesR, it was Ishmael. (Slow down a bit, OK?  ) And how well did that work out? Yes, we read in the OT that God permitted men to have multiple wives and concubines. But can you cite any examples where this practice proved to be a good thing?

[orthonorm]

The Semitic term z-n-h basically covers any and all sex not with your spouse.

Well what about when people had sex with their servants and concubines? God didn't condemn Abraham for conceiving Esau with a servant girl. Does the term really cover 'any and all sex' not with your spouse? And what was a 'spouse' considered? Would two people just cohabitating be considered married if they stayed committed?

Actually, JamesR, it was Ishmael. (Slow down a bit, OK?  ) And how well did that work out? Yes, we read in the OT that God permitted men to have multiple wives and concubines. But can you cite any examples where this practice proved to be a good thing?

What's a good thing?

If you are going to use anecdotal evidence, monogamous marriages have shown on the whole to be a pretty large failure.

Of course the rejoinder, would be: but were they truly practicing a Christian marriage?

And we get to the No True Scotsman.

Under certain sociological conditions more widespread polygamy works better. Under other conditions more widespread monogamy does.

People tend to write into religion what their mores are rather than letting religion dictate their mores. (See history of everyone. For Orthodoxy see allowing multiple marriages for all sortsa reasons.)

I think JamesR's points which can be empirically demonstrated to be true should not be dismissed.

But one also must keep in mind what the Christian ideal is and not attempt to "naturalize" it (explain it in sloppy sociological, anecdotal, psychological language).

Everyone likes to talk about sex around here.

But let's be honest.

The Christian ideal in the sexual arena has been a pretty incredible failure.

This should not be of that much concern as other matters of Christian life have been utter failures: charity for example.

It doesn't take much to understand why people are so animated by the pelvic positions (sex, homosexuality, abortion birth control, people confuse those often enough) and seem to take in stride the near absolute lack of anything beginning to be near the Gospel's message of taking care of the poor, immigrants, and sick. Go take a peak at the politics section of this board if the real world isn't convincing enough.

[Iconodule]

There was a poster around for a while who got run off over this question although his arguments were rather sound and near yours, but stated a bit more exhaustively.

Frankly, other than "tradition", no decent argument was offered.

I remember that thread very differently from you.

[orthonorm]

There was a poster around for a while who got run off over this question although his arguments were rather sound and near yours, but stated a bit more exhaustively.

Frankly, other than "tradition", no decent argument was offered.

I remember that thread very differently from you.

What can I say, I have a soft spot in my heart for the underdog . . .

[Iconodule]

The CLOSEST thing I see that even resembles fornication is a part in the Old Testament (can't remember the exact location) which states that if an unmarried man seduces an unmarried woman and they have sex, then they were to be married.

I would say that's pretty conclusive that premarital sex was frowned upon. You either get married or, if the father doesn't want you to get married, you pay the bride price anyway. Also, the fact that a woman not found to be a virgin on the marriage bed could be executed (Deut 22:20-21) because she "played the whore." Lastly, consider that Jacob could not "go into" Rachel until they were married, and he had to wait years for this.

[ialmisry]

The Semitic term z-n-h basically covers any and all sex not with your spouse.

So the Bible(tm) is in Greek until it is inconvenient, then it is in Hebrew?

It's in Hebrew and Aramaic, then Greek.  Becoming definitive in the last, however, entails taking account of the Vorlage of the first two.  So what Homer or Pericles meant by "porneia" is not dispositive as by why St. Matthew picked the term.

No inconvenience at all.

[genesisone]

The Semitic term z-n-h basically covers any and all sex not with your spouse.

Well what about when people had sex with their servants and concubines? God didn't condemn Abraham for conceiving Esau with a servant girl. Does the term really cover 'any and all sex' not with your spouse? And what was a 'spouse' considered? Would two people just cohabitating be considered married if they stayed committed?

Actually, JamesR, it was Ishmael. (Slow down a bit, OK?  ) And how well did that work out? Yes, we read in the OT that God permitted men to have multiple wives and concubines. But can you cite any examples where this practice proved to be a good thing?

What's a good thing?

...and they all lived happily ever after. 

Are there any saints who practised some version of polygamy (at least after conversion)?

If you are going to use anecdotal evidence, monogamous marriages have shown on the whole to be a pretty large failure.

Of course the rejoinder, would be: but were they truly practicing a Christian marriage?

And we get to the No True Scotsman.

Under certain sociological conditions more widespread polygamy works better. Under other conditions more widespread monogamy does.

People tend to write into religion what their mores are rather than letting religion dictate their mores. (See history of everyone. For Orthodoxy see allowing multiple marriages for all sortsa reasons.)

I think JamesR's points which can be empirically demonstrated to be true should not be dismissed.

But one also must keep in mind what the Christian ideal is and not attempt to "naturalize" it (explain it in sloppy sociological, anecdotal, psychological language).

Everyone likes to talk about sex around here.

But let's be honest.

The Christian ideal in the sexual arena has been a pretty incredible failure.

This should not be of that much concern as other matters of Christian life have been utter failures: charity for example.

It doesn't take much to understand why people are so animated by the pelvic positions (sex, homosexuality, abortion birth control, people confuse those often enough) and seem to take in stride the near absolute lack of anything beginning to be near the Gospel's message of taking care of the poor, immigrants, and sick. Go take a peak at the politics section of this board if the real world isn't convincing enough.

You make some good points. God's permitting polygamy (at least in OT) and allowing for divorce (OT and NT) indicate that He is quite aware of how difficult we find it to achieve the ideal. But that's not an excuse to take the attitude, "Well, I can't be perfect - so why bother trying."

[JamesR]

Are there any saints who practised some version of polygamy (at least after conversion)?

St. Vladimir who converted Russia?

[William]

Are there any saints who practised some version of polygamy (at least after conversion)?

St. Vladimir who converted Russia?

His other wives became nuns.

[orthonorm]

Are there any saints who practised some version of polygamy (at least after conversion)?

St. Vladimir who converted Russia?

His other wives became nuns.

It was like The Bachelor in reverse.

[yeshuaisiam]

The Semitic term z-n-h basically covers any and all sex not with your spouse.

Well what about when people had sex with their servants and concubines? God didn't condemn Abraham for conceiving Esau with a servant girl. Does the term really cover 'any and all sex' not with your spouse? And what was a 'spouse' considered? Would two people just cohabitating be considered married if they stayed committed?

James,

Your logic is far beyond your years brother.  I didn't consider a lot of these things until a lot later.

Adultery as understood in Judaism (from the 10 commandments) as sex outside of marriage.

That said, of Course the 1st covenant was not given to Israel then in the time of Abraham.  However, it does draw curiosity....

Fornication was condemned in the Jewish culture for sure.

Polygamy.... NOW THAT's a kicker.

Let's talk about:
Solomon (700 wives and concubines)
David
Jacob
Gideon
Ashur
Caleb
Simeon
Saul
Joash

Only to be condemned by the church....
In the scriptures it was only condemned for BISHOPS to have more than one wife.   To cover my skin, I reference the scriptures as a testimony of the lives of early Christians and what they practiced, vs. MUCH later condemnation by the church.

Fornication also has many rough results.  Pregnancies out of matrimony.  Unstable families.

So without any intent to Hijack your thread, I would be interested in your thoughts on Polygamy as some would classify Polygamy in the same grouping as "quasi fornication/adultery".

I asked my wife about her thoughts on polygamy.  She said she could not find anywhere other than condemnation by the church canon that would make me, the "head of the household" forbidden to get another wife.  (Yes, she was serious about it).  She said if "that is where you feel God is leading you, then let his will be done".  But honestly, I have 100% no desire for another wife, nor do I believe it is God's will at all.  Can you imagine TWO, or THREE honey-do lists??  (J/K)   Really I'm just "wired" for one wife.  It sounds "icky" to have more than that.  I don't want to snuggle one one night, then the other the next.   It's just too funky. Plus, I do believe my wife really would not enjoy me marrying another woman at all.   I know she would let me and accept it... But when you love somebody so much you would never do anything to "really" harm them.  I told her "I know God ONLY wants YOU to be my wife".

Anyway, I would advise against fornication.  So much in this world promotes it so long as it is "safe sex".  What may be "safe for the body" could not be "safe for the soul".  Imagine being fornication free, and marrying a woman someday that is the same.  Waiting for each other to become "one flesh".   When you are married finally, not to tote THAT baggage.

I really can't comment on instances like Abraham well.  I can try to work around the logic and call it pre-10-commandments...  But sometimes we just have to shrug and say  and go on.   For all we know something could have happened and it was not written about.  Or ?   Some things like that are just not answerable.

God Bless.

[JamesR]

So without any intent to Hijack your thread, I would be interested in your thoughts on Polygamy as some would classify Polygamy in the same grouping as "quasi fornication/adultery".

Tough question. Well, biologically is makes absolutely NO sense to me at all. There is no evidence at all that humans are monogamous. In fact, humans demonstrate the qualities of a polygamous species. Firstly, the fact that on average, male humans are larger than female humans--as is the case with polygamous animals. Secondly, take into consideration the fact that a man can ejaculate/impregnate a woman several times a day, whereas it takes a woman 9 months to have one child. And the purpose of sex is children. If we were meant to have only one partner, then how come men are still so capable of impregnating other women while his wife is pregnant? Why not one ejaculation per 9 months to match our wife if we were meant to be monogamous?

Spiritually, that's a tough question. But I think that I am going to have to side with the Church on this issue--even if it makes no sense to me. Firstly, because God originally gave Adam only ONE wife (Eve), not several wives. We don't see polygamy in the Bible until AFTER the Fall. My thoughts are that God simply made a concession for our human weakness by allowing polygamy. The New Testament takes it a step further by now requiring clergy to be monogamous, then the Church completes it by taking the final step by forcing everyone to be monogamous. However, I still think that the Church REQUIRING all marriages to be monogamous seems wrong. I don't see why God still can't make concessions for our weakness now and still allow polygamy. I mean, let's face it, staying committed to one partner seems like it really sucks. On the other hand, I imagine that polygamy would also create A LOT of problems. For starters, it could promote competition among the several husbands/wives, and lead to a lot of people getting jealous and getting their feelings hurt. Plus, it could heavily be abused by people who are not really interested in marriage and a true relationship with their spouse and just want sex.

Anyway, I would advise against fornication.  So much in this world promotes it so long as it is "safe sex".  What may be "safe for the body" could not be "safe for the soul".  Imagine being fornication free, and marrying a woman someday that is the same.  Waiting for each other to become "one flesh".   When you are married finally, not to tote THAT baggage.

This is something I don't get. NO ONE waits anymore. In fact, my parents didn't even wait. If it weren't for teenage fornication then I wouldn't be here. I honestly don't understand what's wrong with it and can't honestly condemn it as bad. If I were, then I would be lying to myself.

[ialmisry]

So without any intent to Hijack your thread, I would be interested in your thoughts on Polygamy as some would classify Polygamy in the same grouping as "quasi fornication/adultery".

Tough question. Well, biologically is makes absolutely NO sense to me at all. There is no evidence at all that humans are monogamous. In fact, humans demonstrate the qualities of a polygamous species. Firstly, the fact that on average, male humans are larger than female humans--as is the case with polygamous animals. Secondly, take into consideration the fact that a man can ejaculate/impregnate a woman several times a day, whereas it takes a woman 9 months to have one child. And the purpose of sex is children. If we were meant to have only one partner, then how come men are still so capable of impregnating other women while his wife is pregnant? Why not one ejaculation per 9 months to match our wife if we were meant to be monogamous?

Spiritually, that's a tough question. But I think that I am going to have to side with the Church on this issue--even if it makes no sense to me. Firstly, because God originally gave Adam only ONE wife (Eve), not several wives. We don't see polygamy in the Bible until AFTER the Fall. My thoughts are that God simply made a concession for our human weakness by allowing polygamy. The New Testament takes it a step further by now requiring clergy to be monogamous, then the Church completes it by taking the final step by forcing everyone to be monogamous. However, I still think that the Church REQUIRING all marriages to be monogamous seems wrong. I don't see why God still can't make concessions for our weakness now and still allow polygamy. I mean, let's face it, staying committed to one partner seems like it really sucks.

au contraire, I know many such couples 50 years plus or more, that make me envy.

If God intended polygamy, then the sex ratio would have to be at least 2 to 1, instead of being nearly even, as it is.

On the other hand, I imagine that polygamy would also create A LOT of problems. For starters, it could promote competition among the several husbands/wives, and lead to a lot of people getting jealous and getting their feelings hurt. Plus, it could heavily be abused by people who are not really interested in marriage and a true relationship with their spouse and just want sex.

Anyway, I would advise against fornication.  So much in this world promotes it so long as it is "safe sex".  What may be "safe for the body" could not be "safe for the soul".  Imagine being fornication free, and marrying a woman someday that is the same.  Waiting for each other to become "one flesh".   When you are married finally, not to tote THAT baggage.

This is something I don't get. NO ONE waits anymore. In fact, my parents didn't even wait. If it weren't for teenage fornication then I wouldn't be here. I honestly don't understand what's wrong with it and can't honestly condemn it as bad. If I were, then I would be lying to myself.

Just because God saved through Joseph doesn't make selling your brother into slavery a good thing.

Btw, aren't your parents still married?

[JamesR]

Maybe you have a point Isa, although, sometimes the thought of selling my brother into slavery doesn't seem half bad considering how much he can push my buttons...anyhow, to answer your question, yeah my parents are still married (about 15 years or something of marriage) but they weren't married at the time they conceived and bore me.

[orthonorm]

yeah my parents are still married (about 15 years or something of marriage) but they weren't married at the time they conceived and bore me.

To be fair:

They are married now that you bore them.

[ialmisry]

Maybe you have a point Isa, although, sometimes the thought of selling my brother into slavery doesn't seem half bad considering how much he can push my buttons...anyhow, to answer your question, yeah my parents are still married (about 15 years or something of marriage) but they weren't married at the time they conceived and bore me.

Could it be that conceiving you pushed them in the right direction?

[orthonorm]

I asked my wife about her thoughts on polygamy.  She said she could not find anywhere other than condemnation by the church canon that would make me, the "head of the household" forbidden to get another wife.  (Yes, she was serious about it).  She said if "that is where you feel God is leading you, then let his will be done".

I think this is where she was suggesting God might be leading you:

[yeshuaisiam]

So without any intent to Hijack your thread, I would be interested in your thoughts on Polygamy as some would classify Polygamy in the same grouping as "quasi fornication/adultery".

Tough question. Well, biologically is makes absolutely NO sense to me at all. There is no evidence at all that humans are monogamous. In fact, humans demonstrate the qualities of a polygamous species. Firstly, the fact that on average, male humans are larger than female humans--as is the case with polygamous animals. Secondly, take into consideration the fact that a man can ejaculate/impregnate a woman several times a day, whereas it takes a woman 9 months to have one child. And the purpose of sex is children. If we were meant to have only one partner, then how come men are still so capable of impregnating other women while his wife is pregnant? Why not one ejaculation per 9 months to match our wife if we were meant to be monogamous?

Spiritually, that's a tough question. But I think that I am going to have to side with the Church on this issue--even if it makes no sense to me. Firstly, because God originally gave Adam only ONE wife (Eve), not several wives. We don't see polygamy in the Bible until AFTER the Fall. My thoughts are that God simply made a concession for our human weakness by allowing polygamy. The New Testament takes it a step further by now requiring clergy to be monogamous, then the Church completes it by taking the final step by forcing everyone to be monogamous. However, I still think that the Church REQUIRING all marriages to be monogamous seems wrong. I don't see why God still can't make concessions for our weakness now and still allow polygamy. I mean, let's face it, staying committed to one partner seems like it really sucks. On the other hand, I imagine that polygamy would also create A LOT of problems. For starters, it could promote competition among the several husbands/wives, and lead to a lot of people getting jealous and getting their feelings hurt. Plus, it could heavily be abused by people who are not really interested in marriage and a true relationship with their spouse and just want sex.

Anyway, I would advise against fornication.  So much in this world promotes it so long as it is "safe sex".  What may be "safe for the body" could not be "safe for the soul".  Imagine being fornication free, and marrying a woman someday that is the same.  Waiting for each other to become "one flesh".   When you are married finally, not to tote THAT baggage.

This is something I don't get. NO ONE waits anymore. In fact, my parents didn't even wait. If it weren't for teenage fornication then I wouldn't be here. I honestly don't understand what's wrong with it and can't honestly condemn it as bad. If I were, then I would be lying to myself.

James, even though I was born to married parents, let me give you a little bit of what I think of your situation (I appreciate your answer by the way!!!!)

Even though you were brought into the world in a less than desirable circumstance in the way Christianity would suggest, it is not your fault at all.  God works in mysterious ways, and you were just born with the same original sin as me or anybody else.

The thing is, it is hard to describe what fornication is to a person who has never been married.  I can't imagine the struggles you go through as a younger teen, hormones raging, porn at every corner on the net, and teenage girls that are "available".....   

If you meet a woman who is still a virgin, and you are still a virgin, there will be a bond there that both of you will cherish forever.  There will be a closeness with "no extra baggage".   In our scriptures it states "the two will become one flesh" describing both the physical relationship (some spiritual as well).  To become one flesh on a fling will scar you.  I've heard this time and time again.

I do not know the struggles you face today exactly.  My teens were in the late 80's early 90's.  Seek and you will find.  I'm an ABSOLUTE proponent of people getting married EARLY.

Me almost 19 my wife 17 at the time. Both in our mid to mid-late 30s now.

[yeshuaisiam]

I asked my wife about her thoughts on polygamy.  She said she could not find anywhere other than condemnation by the church canon that would make me, the "head of the household" forbidden to get another wife.  (Yes, she was serious about it).  She said if "that is where you feel God is leading you, then let his will be done".

I think this is where she was suggesting God might be leading you:

Most polygamists do not register with the state, nor get tax credits.  It's the ones who do that end up in the clink.

But then again....

God leads people into a lot of situations that result in DEATH, prison, etc.

[LewisBosch]

The thing is, it is hard to describe what fornication is to a person who has never been married.  I can't imagine the struggles you go through as a younger teen, hormones raging, porn at every corner on the net, and teenage girls that are "available".....  

If you meet a woman who is still a virgin, and you are still a virgin, there will be a bond there that both of you will cherish forever.  There will be a closeness with "no extra baggage".   In our scriptures it states "the two will become one flesh" describing both the physical relationship (some spiritual as well).  To become one flesh on a fling will scar you.  I've heard this time and time again.

I do not know the struggles you face today exactly.  My teens were in the late 80's early 90's.  Seek and you will find.  I'm an ABSOLUTE proponent of people getting married EARLY.

Me almost 19 my wife 17 at the time. Both in our mid to mid-late 30s now.

I feel "as two will become one" with my fiance, a feeling I never had with other girls I slept with and dated.

Virgin marring a virgin is the ideal, certainly, but I believe both people have to have other traditional gender and sexual mores. For example, I found a website for devote Christians dealing with sex in marriage. The womens' opinion on the thread were basically, "it's my duty to fulfill his desires." This is great and essential, I believe, as an incentive for a man to remain a virgin until marriage; the man won't feel the need to experience other women because his future wife will provide all the variety he needs. But, what if the man is an avid porn watcher? His needs may tax the wife who may (or may not as the forum proved) be averse to anything other than penis-vaginal sex. Both partners need to be on board before and during the courtship and through out the marriage. That could be risky, but as Yeshuaisiam proves, it's possible. Sexually is so pervasive in the American culture it's almost impossible to opt out of it and still be a social person. Anyone who can do it, my hat is off to you. You're a stronger person than I.

I half-wish we were both virgins, because I can easily picture the bond Yeshuaisiam speaks of and its beauty and sanctity, and I long for it. But, even before I was exposed to pornography, I loved women - everything about them - and I was a quirky kid with budding deviance. Virginity is more of a gamble, excluding pregnancy and diseases, than pre-marital fornication, and like most gambles, the pay-off is much better.

The best article I've ever read on chastity is the chapter on chastity in James Martin's "The Jesuit Guide to (almost) Everything." I highly recommend it. He's much more optimistic about chastity, but as a sexually active person, I get the sense he experienced sex and was able to work his way through the need. In fact, the chapter is pretty much how to do that.

**** With that being said ****
I definitely agree sexual flings are scarring. The secular world tries to teach you they aren't, but for most people they are. If you speak with someone raised entirely in the secular world, you'll find sex is this odd god everyone venerates but no one looks at objectively.

When I went through a phase of tossing off my raised religion, I had a one night stand, and I felt empty, but, I thought I was doing the right thing, the thing society was teaching me to do. Personal intimacy should never be separated from sex.

Sexual, healthy chastity, in my opinion, is only achievable for a single person if either the person isn't a very sexual person by nature or if they don't have a high libido and maintain and plan for a celibate life, or through theosis. Many repressed people end up holding at bay one vice and end up ignoring the rest.

[katherineofdixie]

I definitely agree sexual flings are scarring. The secular world tries to teach you they aren't, but for most people they are. If you speak with someone raised entirely in the secular world, you'll find sex is this odd god everyone venerates but no one looks at objectively.

When I went through a phase of tossing off my raised religion, I had a one night stand, and I felt empty, but, I thought I was doing the right thing, the thing society was teaching me to do. Personal intimacy should never be separated from sex.

Thank you for this.

[SavedByChrist94]

Adultery is any sexual activity without marriage .

you are in error, Adultery is unfaithfulness. Israel committed adultery against God.

Jesus also went farther when he said even looking at another with lustful thoughts is adultery.


<< Matthew 5:28 >>

New International Version (©1984)
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Nope, it's whoever looks at a woman to cheat with or steal(aka covet)commits Adultery in his/her heart.

http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/2009/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28-18

The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit(God) created sex and attraction, read Song of Songs

[SavedByChrist94]

When I went through a phase of tossing off my raised religion, I had a one night stand, and I felt empty, but, I thought I was doing the right thing, the thing society was teaching me to do. Personal intimacy should never be separated from sex.

you are in error, you confuse promiscuity (can be done even if married) with premartial sex. Faithful sex between husband and wife, and faithful sex between boyfriend and girlfriend(premartial) is right, unfaithful sex such as promiscuity, one night stands, homosexual behavior, bestiality, etc, all are wrong and can be done married or not.

Sexual, healthy chastity, in my opinion, is only achievable for a single person if either the person isn't a very sexual person by nature or if they don't have a high libido and maintain and plan for a celibate life, or through theosis. Many repressed people end up holding at bay one vice and end up ignoring the rest.

one night stands, promiscuity and unnecessary chastity aren't healthy. chastity for the sake(if necessary) of The Kingdom if one can accept as Jesus Christ said, should accept, as that would be a gift.

[Arachne]

'Unnecessary chastity'?

2000 years of Church scholars and martyrs disagree.

[biro]

Maybe the reason people occasionally looked the other way, if a young couple got caught together, is that people got married much younger in ancient times. Most got married in their middle or late teens. So if they got together with their fiancee before the wedding, but they were already engaged, not a big loss- they were going to get married anyway. And if they were caught prior to engagement, it was easy enough to arrange a marriage.

[Ashman618]

When I went through a phase of tossing off my raised religion, I had a one night stand, and I felt empty, but, I thought I was doing the right thing, the thing society was teaching me to do. Personal intimacy should never be separated from sex.

you are in error, you confuse promiscuity (can be done even if married) with premartial sex. Faithful sex between husband and wife, and faithful sex between boyfriend and girlfriend(premartial) is right, unfaithful sex such as promiscuity, one night stands, homosexual behavior, bestiality, etc, all are wrong and can be done married or not.

Sexual, healthy chastity, in my opinion, is only achievable for a single person if either the person isn't a very sexual person by nature or if they don't have a high libido and maintain and plan for a celibate life, or through theosis. Many repressed people end up holding at bay one vice and end up ignoring the rest.

one night stands, promiscuity and unnecessary chastity aren't healthy. chastity for the sake(if necessary) of The Kingdom if one can accept as Jesus Christ said, should accept, as that would be a gift.

Dude you better be very very careful what you tell people about sex because your taking responsibility for other peoples souls, and that is no joke, and could come back to haunt you, so watch how you teach your own private interpritation of Holy Scripture to others. God bless you

[SavedByChrist94]

'Unnecessary chastity'?

2000 years of Church scholars and martyrs disagree.

Where did Jesus Christ say chastity is a necessity? He said if one needs to accept it for Kingdoms sake then they should accept it.

[biro]

Anybody else think SBC94 reminds them a lot of a couple other posters? Anybody? Going once, going twice...

 

[Arachne]

Where did Jesus Christ say chastity is a necessity? He said if one needs to accept it for Kingdoms sake then they should accept it.

Chastity is not the same as celibacy, you know. Faithfully married people are still chaste. Some of the early believers had the same trouble, that's why St. Paul had to reassure them that marriage was not a sin. Every occasion of extramarital sexual activity is met with 'go and sin no more'.

[SavedByChrist94]

Anybody else think SBC94 reminds them a lot of a couple other posters? Anybody? Going once, going twice...

 

I've never been on this website before and to prove that I am truly SavedByChrist94 I'll post Private messages of my banning on here so no more slander,


Dear SavedByChrist94,

dnp200450 has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Your view on dating etc. - in the Ethics & Morality forum of Christian Forums.  Do not reply to this email.

This thread is located at:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7708302-new/

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Dating can build you interpersonal and communications skills.  As far as asking her father for permission I have never done that.  She is an adult and will have to make her own decision.  I would not want to have to ask my father for permission to date me. Besides, if I ask her father wouldn't I have to ask her mother as well?
***************


There may also be other replies, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

All the best,
Christian Forums

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unsubscription information:

To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:
http://www.christianforums.com/subscription.php?do=removesubscription&type=thread&subscriptionid=9121567&auth=7eb44a7590b196de51bd35421477e4e0

To unsubscribe from ALL threads, please visit this page:
http://www.christianforums.com/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all

and

Dear SavedByChrist94,

Ken-1122 has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Problem of Suffering only exists for "atheism" - in the Ethics & Morality forum of Christian Forums.  Do not reply to this email.

This thread is located at:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7709314-new/

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************

---Quote (Originally by SavedByChrist94)---
nature has no want, it has no will.
---End Quote---

No! The people who are a part of nature do.

---Quote (Originally by savedbychrist94)---
Yep, and not only that but Science says it too(Substance Dualism, First Uncaused Cause, Intelligent Design)
---End Quote---
If your idea of science includes the existence of God; it is not real science.

---Quote (Originally by savedbychrist94)---
So according to you nature has personhood right?
---End Quote---

Again;The people who are part of nature do.
---Quote (Originally by savedbychrist94)---
Under "naturalism" the mind is material, material has no mind or will, therefore according to you, you have no free will, which is fairy tales.
---End Quote---
Unless you are referring to the mind as the brain, the mind is not material. If you are referring to it as the brain, then it does have a will.
---Quote (Originally by savedbychrist94)---
Says the guy who thinks matter/nature/"naturalism" is a person... you're reported for attacking something personal.
---End Quote---
Yeah go tell mommy.

Ken
***************


There may also be other replies, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

All the best,
Christian Forums

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unsubscription information:

To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:
http://www.christianforums.com/subscription.php?do=removesubscription&type=thread&subscriptionid=9121524&auth=cfd085b05eabb9576297875813ffd922

To unsubscribe from ALL threads, please visit this page:
http://www.christianforums.com/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all

and

Finally from my profile

You have been banned for the following reason:
consistently flaming

Date the ban will be lifted: Never


They said 6 months I could probably resign to "think about my actions", I told them all I needed was a week, leaving them with no excuse. misleading website name to me, as Christians we have to be Pro-Bible and anti-man.
They banned me because I proved premartial sex isn't a sin, they could've easily forgave me when I was sorry and they let bigoted "atheist"(not all "atheist" don't want to get slandered, but bigoted ones) stay.

[JamesR]

This whole thing is so stupid. When will the Church recognize that humans have biological needs and that abstinence until marriage is no longer as easy as it used to be? Saving your virginity until your late 20s to early 30s can't be healthy. Monogamy itself has no basis in biology. For once why can't the Church have a position that doesn't contradict reason and just fall back on the "it's a spiritual thing" excuse? With the invention of contraceptives, what's wrong with fornication now? The risk of disease is practically gone, and as much as we may deny it, there is a such thing as "casual sex"--at least millions of people claim to have felt it.

[SolEX01]

This whole thing is so stupid. When will the Church recognize that humans have biological needs and that abstinence until marriage is no longer as easy as it used to be? Saving your virginity until your late 20s to early 30s can't be healthy. Monogamy itself has no basis in biology. For once why can't the Church have a position that doesn't contradict reason and just fall back on the "it's a spiritual thing" excuse? With the invention of contraceptives, what's wrong with fornication now? The risk of disease is practically gone, and as much as we may deny it, there is a such thing as "casual sex"--at least millions of people claim to have felt it.

Show research that says taking contraception eliminates the risk of disease.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: "Porneia" and Fornication?