Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand you are very set in your stance on this issue and you have argued this point over and over for years now on here, but I am going to clarify a few things for others to understand.
I didn't deny your point about the definition of the word, because it is true, but the word has more than one meaning.
Do you not agree that words can have multiple meanings?
Do you not agree that this word has more than one meaning?
I'm not sure you are reading my posts very well. I've already conceded that the word can potentially be a metaphor for any act considered sexually sinful and if it is, then the list of things considered sexually immoral would have had to be defined by the torah law, labeled an actual sin elsewhere in the bible, or violate the law of love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans
You are deflecting. We are talking specifically about the verse that I posted up and how context is used in the Bible. You can go even further to why God created marriage in the first place. If you, according to what you believe is true, are not in sin by sleeping with anyone that you are not married to then what is adultery (it's used in the Bible) and what would even be the purpose of marriage if sex outside of marriage is still permissible? If God made it okay to sleep with someone you aren't married to, then it would defeat the whole purpose of that commitment, would it not?
No it wouldn't and I'm not deflecting, I was trying to help you to understand that your idea of marriage may not be the same as how marriage was perceived in the 1st century and that has a huge barring on this issue. I also wouldn't say sleeping with "Anyone" you not married to is ok as there are many instances where is it careless and unloving in the second greatest commandment regard. But since you asked "what is Adultery," as defined in the bible, it is sleeping with a person who is already married. In the Torah law, it was just sleeping with a with a wife of a man because the Woman was considered the mans property and it a sin punishable by death (blood sacrifice). In the new Testament, both husband and wife are considered eachothers property so sleeping with a married man is also adultery...Interesting side note, the Liberated Christians I mentioned in the Swinging Christians thread believe that with the consent of both husband and wife and believing the law of love to be supreme, this "property" can be "loaned" without calling it biblcal Adultery! lol
...but to answer your main question here, First of all, I do not believe sex automatically = marriage. There is a difference between becoming "one flesh" with someones body and "one flesh" in spirit or by the commitment of marriage. I highly doubt Paul would have considered Christians who slept with a prostitute to literally be married to that prostitute especially if they consider their trade as an act of worship to Venus/Aphrodite (hooray for Corinthian Harlots...) That being said, we should be very careful to we join our bodies to. I've even heard some say that becoming "one flesh" may refer to having Children, but I'm not sure thats a viable definition yet. If sleeping with a virgin meant immediate marriage in Torah Law, their Father would not be able to object to them getting married but God allowed it (among allowing other things that freak traditionalists out). To me, Marriage = Life long spiritual and emotional bond that two people agree to that is also the proper environment to raise Children in and should not be restricted to only being valid under state laws since that was not a requirement in ancient times.
Secondly, regarding intention of God in marriage, the fact that he just created 2 people in the garden to start the human race somehow means that he only ever wanted monogamous marriages I find to be a common but flawed argument. Even in evolution they argue that a new species starts with two compatable mutants (or maybe one whos compable and fertile, I'm no biologist) so its not unheard of that God chose to start with two people. Also, Considering what he allowed and even commanded (levirate Marriage) in the Torah law and even how he rewarded his favorite Old Testament Heros. He even told David that he "gave Sauls wives/women to him." ...If God is perfect, it is my understanding that he cannot command a person to sin no matter what Covenant we are under nor can he change the definition of sin because he is suppose to be the same then, now, and forever.
Lastly, and as I told Visio earlier, Even if it is his "preference" that we get married in the eyes of todays laws with a 1000+ dollar ceremony before we have sex, that doesn't make not holding to it a sin unless it is defined as a sin in the Torah or elsewhere in the bible. There are simply too many different possible circumstance that can arise in life for God to have his preference all the time, so he just works with it and our own free will and doesn't call everything in his non-preference a sin. By definition, all sins require the shedding of blood whether it be the persons blood from being put to death, or blood from a temple sacrifice (or arguably some other type temple sacrifice for some sins according to some jews I've talked to, but I go with the New/Old Testament harmony on this one). No blood sacrifices or deaths where required for instances of premarital sex (or non-cultic prostitution interestingly) in the Torah unless a virgin was found not a virgin or pregnant and no father was known, therefore robbing the father of the dowry and "playing the prostitute while in her fathers house."
Anyways. I'm out of time again. I'll provide verses later if needed, but I hope you can see why I find this why I find this issue so biblically questionable and I think that modern Christianity will eventually see the same thing and modify their rules accordingly..or at least enough to make them sane considering average marriage age is now well over a decade after puberty and most people aren't born monks.
Last edited by Jrhockney; 10-03-2014 at 02:39 PM..
I'm not suggesting that those are the only reasons that people get married, but if it's not considered sinful to have commitments to other people outside of that marriage (via sex, children, or living together), then what does the commitment of marriage actually signify? There would be no purpose of that commitment if people would just simply be able to do the same things with people they are not married to.
It would be like signing a contract with a business to paint your house for a set price, but then going out and hire someone else who you are not under contract for to do the job. What is the point of signing the contract if you are going to get the same benefits elsewhere. The Bible describe marriage as a covenant, so that means there is a meaningful commitment involved. If the assumption that is being made that fornication is not condemned by the Bible, then there is nothing that really is sacred about the institution of marriage. You could remain unmarried and accomplish all the same things.
All of this point to the question of what is the purpose of marriage. You can come up with arbitrary examples of different reasons why people marry, but honestly, how relevant is that to what we are ultimately discussing?
None of this discussion has been about anything beyond two people in a monogamous relationship. Your whole paragraph about house painting makes absolutely no sense when all we're talking about is two people who love each other, whether they are married or not. The reasons people marry is entirely relevant to the discussion, as well as why they might choose not to marry.
Speaking of which, some people find that their particular income levels mean that they actually experience a tax increase if they marry, so they may choose to remain in a committed relationship without marrying. Just because they choose a non-married relationship is no indication that they are looking for other sex partners.
I'm not sure you are reading my posts very well. I've already conceded that the word can potentially be a metaphor for any act considered sexually sinful and if it is, then the list of things considered sexually immoral would have had to be defined by the torah law, labeled an actual sin elsewhere in the bible, or violate the law of love.
No it wouldn't and I'm not deflecting, I was trying to help you to understand that your idea of marriage may not be the same as how marriage was perceived in the 1st century and that has a huge barring on this issue. I also wouldn't say sleeping with "Anyone" you not married to is ok as there are many instances where is it careless and unloving in the second greatest commandment regard. But since you asked "what is Adultery," as defined in the bible, it is sleeping with a person who is already married. In the Torah law, it was just sleeping with a with a wife of a man because the Woman was considered the mans property and it a sin punishable by death (blood sacrifice). In the new Testament, both husband and wife are considered eachothers property so sleeping with a married man is also adultery...Interesting side note, the Liberated Christians I mentioned in the Swinging Christians thread believe that with the consent of both husband and wife and believing the law of love to be supreme, this "property" can be "loaned" without calling it biblcal Adultery! lol
...but to answer your main question here, First of all, I do not believe sex automatically = marriage. There is a difference between becoming "one flesh" with someones body and "one flesh" in spirit or by the commitment of marriage. I highly doubt Paul would have considered Christians who slept with a prostitute to literally be married to that prostitute especially if they consider their trade as an act of worship to Venus/Aphrodite (hooray for Corinthian Harlots...) That being said, we should be very careful to we join our bodies to. I've even heard some say that becoming "one flesh" may refer to having Children, but I'm not sure thats a viable definition yet. If sleeping with a virgin meant immediate marriage in Torah Law, their Father would not be able to object to them getting married but God allowed it (among allowing other things that freak traditionalists out). To me, Marriage = Life long spiritual and emotional bond that two people agree to that is also the proper environment to raise Children in and should not be restricted to only being valid under state laws since that was not a requirement in ancient times.
Secondly, regarding intention of God in marriage, the fact that he just created 2 people in the garden to start the human race somehow means that he only ever wanted monogamous marriages I find to be a common but flawed argument. Even in evolution they argue that a new species starts with two compatable mutants (or maybe one whos compable and fertile, I'm no biologist) so its not unheard of that God chose to start with two people. Also, Considering what he allowed and even commanded (levirate Marriage) in the Torah law and even how he rewarded his favorite Old Testament Heros. He even told David that he "gave Sauls wives/women to him." ...If God is perfect, it is my understanding that he cannot command a person to sin no matter what Covenant we are under nor can he change the definition of sin because he is suppose to be the same then, now, and forever.
Lastly, and as I told Visio earlier, Even if it is his "preference" that we get married in the eyes of todays laws with a 1000+ dollar ceremony before we have sex, that doesn't make not holding to it a sin unless it is defined as a sin in the Torah or elsewhere in the bible. There are simply too many different possible circumstance that can arise in life for God to have his preference all the time, so he just works with it and our own free will and doesn't call everything in his non-preference a sin. By definition, all sins require the shedding of blood whether it be the persons blood from being put to death, or blood from a temple sacrifice (or arguably some other type temple sacrifice for some sins according to some jews I've talked to, but I go with the New/Old Testament harmony on this one). No blood sacrifices or deaths where required for instances of premarital sex (or non-cultic prostitution interestingly) in the Torah unless a virgin was found not a virgin or pregnant and no father was known, therefore robbing the father of the dowry and "playing the prostitute while in her fathers house."
Anyways. I'm out of time again. I'll provide verses later if needed, but I hope you can see why I find this why I find this issue so biblically questionable and I think that modern Christianity will eventually see the same thing and modify their rules accordingly..or at least enough to make them sane considering average marriage age is now well over a decade after puberty and most people aren't born monks.
You are saying a lot of stuff, but I don't know if you are making this stuff up or what. Do you have any references to the things you are saying? It comes off like you are giving your opinion.
How do you know the word was used metaphorically as opposed to being explicitly stated?
Your point about assuming because God created Adam and Eve, that he wants us to have monogamous marriages is debunked by the fact that in Matthew 19, Jesus reaffirmed the purpose and design of marriage, so it's not an assumption, it is something that was confirmed by Jesus himself.
Last edited by justtitans; 10-03-2014 at 07:02 PM..
None of this discussion has been about anything beyond two people in a monogamous relationship. Your whole paragraph about house paining makes absolutely no sense when all we're talking about is two people who love each other, whether they are married or not. The reasons people marry is entirely relevant to the discussion, a well a why they might choose not to marry.
It's called an analogy. The purpose is to illustrate that when a covenant happens, it serves no purpose in the first place if you plan to break that covenant. If you are freely able to simply do what ever you choose with anyone that you are not married to, then what is the point of marriage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Speaking of which, some people find that their particular income leevels mean that they actually experience a tax increase if they marry, so they may choose to remain in a committed relationship without marrying. Just because they choose a non-married relationship is no indication that they are looking for othr sex partners.
That is very true, but what we are trying to decipher in the context of what has been defined as marriage by God, if we assume what certain posters are suggesting about how God views cohabitation, fornication or anything else related, then what would make that non-married relationship and different than a married one. The assumption that is being made does not distinguish marriage as being sacred in anyway, which is Biblically how it is described.
It's called an analogy. The purpose is to illustrate that when a covenant happens, it serves no purpose in the first place if you plan to break that covenant. If you are freely able to simply do what ever you choose with anyone that you are not married to, then what is the point of marriage?
<snip>
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with breaking any covenant. You are the only one posting any assumption that two people living together always do so planning to have sex with somebody else. I try to go through this life assuming the best in people instead of assuming the worst.
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with breaking any covenant. You are the only one posting any assumption that two people living together always do so planning to have sex with somebody else. I try to go through this life assuming the best in people instead of assuming the worst.
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding but my take on the OP was that we're actually talking about a boyfriend and girlfriend, both of the Christians, living together and have sex on a pretty regular basis.
It's an interesting side topic to discuss whether roommates who are opposite in gender are doing anything wrong. I think almost any Christian agrees that they are not sinning just by living in the same house or apartment. It does tempt fate though. Men and women are programmed such that all of our relationships with the opposite sex have sexual components built in. It could simply be that there is no attraction whatsoever. It could be that there is some attraction but both parties actively and constantly repress that attraction. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities there. But at the end of the day, unless they actually have sexual relations they are not sinning.
It's called an analogy. The purpose is to illustrate that when a covenant happens, it serves no purpose in the first place if you plan to break that covenant. If you are freely able to simply do what ever you choose with anyone that you are not married to, then what is the point of marriage?
<snip>
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with breaking any covenant. You are the only one posting any assumption that two people living together always do so planning to have sex with somebody else. I try to go through this life assuming the best in people instead of assuming the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding but my take on the OP was that we're actually talking about a boyfriend and girlfriend, both of the Christians, living together and have sex on a pretty regular basis.
It's an interesting side topic to discuss whether roommates who are opposite in gender are doing anything wrong. I think almost any Christian agrees that they are not sinning just by living in the same house or apartment. It does tempt fate though. Men and women are programmed such that all of our relationships with the opposite sex have sexual components built in. It could simply be that there is no attraction whatsoever. It could be that there is some attraction but both parties actively and constantly repress that attraction. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities there. But at the end of the day, unless they actually have sexual relations they are not sinning.
I was making a reply to justtitans's implication that people living together without being married are "planning to break that covenant." He's presented absolutely no evidence that such is normally the case. If my post seemed to imply that people normally live together without having sex, I failed to phrase my thoughts correctly.
Nothing in this thread has anything to do with breaking any covenant. You are the only one posting any assumption that two people living together always do so planning to have sex with somebody else. I try to go through this life assuming the best in people instead of assuming the worst.
You clearly have different views on this subject than I do so it honestly may not make any sense to continue trying to explain my point, but I will at least clarify that I am not making any assumptions, I am simply explaining that the odds of committing that act becomes greater in a situation involving cohabitation. If you go back to my past posts on this thread, I acknowledged that there are people who do not struggle with this, so I have no idea how you interpreted that I am making any assumptions of anyone.
It's called an analogy. The purpose is to illustrate that when a covenant happens, it serves no purpose in the first place if you plan to break that covenant. If you are freely able to simply do what ever you choose with anyone that you are not married to, then what is the point of marriage?
<snip>
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans
You clearly have different views on this subject than I do so it honestly may not make any sense to continue trying to explain my point, but I will at least clarify that I am not making any assumptions, I am simply explaining that the odds of committing that act becomes greater in a situation involving cohabitation. If you go back to my past posts on this thread, I acknowledged that there are people who do not struggle with this, so I have no idea how you interpreted that I am making any assumptions of anyone.
Well, there's the post. Those are the words you posted. I read that to mean that you think people will break some "covenant" if they aren't married and will do "whatever they choose with anyone that they are not married to." Any reasonable reading would indicate that you think people will have sex with anybody if they don't get married. Is getting married somehow going to make that impossible? If you didn't assume that people will have wonton sex if they don't get married, then just what DID you mean?
Relationships are not bound to that of a piece of paper. Commitment comes from the heart; not an institution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) That being said, we should be very careful to we join our bodies to. I've even heard some say that becoming "one flesh" may refer to having Children, but I'm not sure thats a viable definition yet. If sleeping with a virgin meant immediate marriage in Torah Law, their Father would not be able to object to them getting married but God allowed it (among allowing other things that freak traditionalists out). To me, Marriage = Life long spiritual and emotional bond that two people agree to that is also the proper environment to raise Children in and should not be restricted to only being valid under state laws since that was not a requirement in ancient times.
