Refraining from Sex - Advice please!

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Agggh, lost the context,
The injunction is against fornication which if I understand correctly is sex with prostitutes under bridges but I'm being pedantic when it obvious that the injunction is really about betrayal and using another person as a commodity.
End and means, if the sex is consensual and about the other person rather than about satisfying your own desires and need then it in a different category to 'fornication'. None of which absolves the 'sin' of acting outside the rules but dose make a difference to the sin that being committed.
What I'm trying to say is that sex itself isn't a sin. Nor is sex without authorization, its the use that the sex is put to that defines the sin.

Well women who were not virgins on their wedding night used to be stoned to death in ancient Israel, so I don't think I agree with your assessment.

Whether you believe this is a commandment from God on how best to live your life, or whether you believe it is just a bunch of men trying to protect their hereditary rights (as I do) the prohibition against pre-marital sex seems as strong as the prohibition against adultery.

wolfsbane

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

So, if I was married and I received oral sex from a person other than my spouse, would I be an adulterer ... in a Biblical sense?

Yes. The Bill Clinton defence not withstanding!

********************************************************************
Ezekiel 23:2 “Son of man, there were two women,
The daughters of one mother.
3 They committed harlotry in Egypt,
They committed harlotry in their youth;
Their breasts were there embraced,
Their virgin bosom was there pressed

wolfsbane

Alan 1990 wrote: »

"But your motivation seems to come from your realisation that pre-marital sex is a sin, an act against God's will for us. You are correct in so thinking"

Sex is a sin?? And against gods will for us? How do you know have you asked him??? Not saying god doesn't exist I'm a firm believer in a higher power but why would something so natural be a sin? Is it a sin for apes and other animals to mate or have they to 'save' themselves for marriage as well?!

Sex outside marriage is a sin. Sex inside marriage is holy - and beautiful!

I didn't need to ask God about it. He already said. You can read it for yourself in any Bible.

Something so natural [sex outside marriage] is sinful because it violates the oneness principle God established for a man and a woman:
Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

That did not happen to any of the animals, so the principle does not apply to them.

*******************************************************************
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Well women who were not virgins on their wedding night used to be stoned to death in ancient Israel, so I don't think I agree with your assessment.

Whether you believe this is a commandment from God on how best to live your life, or whether you believe it is just a bunch of men trying to protect their hereditary rights (as I do) the prohibition against pre-marital sex seems as strong as the prohibition against adultery.

We have come on a bit since ancient Israel, Christian now or attempting to be.
Oh I think it about property rights more than morals but its also about the best way to live.
It really comes down to the definition you use for marriage, in a way sex before marriage is an oxymoron, sex itself is a form of marriage. For a Christian it's the commitment before the eyes of God that counts.
Love or property rights are of the world marriage is something else.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

We have come on a bit since ancient Israel, Christian now or attempting to be.

How far we have come on is irrelevant to the issue of whether pre-marital sex is considered as bad by Biblical standards as sex with-in adultery.

tommy2bad wrote: »

It really comes down to the definition you use for marriage, in a way sex before marriage is an oxymoron, sex itself is a form of marriage. For a Christian it's the commitment before the eyes of God that counts.

Sex itself is not a form of marriage in Christianity. Commitment before God is what counts, but having sex with someone is not that commitment. In Christianity sex is an activity to be carried out by those who have already made that commitment.

Don't like that the solution is easy, don't be a Christian. Not being a Christian is surprisingly easy, I'm always amazed that some people want to continue to call themselves Christian yet change all the Christian beliefs. It seems rather pointless, like wanting to be a "Communist" who believes in capitalism, private property and the pursuit of wealth.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

How far we have come on is irrelevant to the issue of whether pre-marital sex is considered as bad by Biblical standards as sex with-in adultery.
But were not taking about biblical standards


Sex itself is not a form of marriage in Christianity. Commitment before God is what counts, but having sex with someone is not that commitment. In Christianity sex is an activity to be carried out by those who have already made that commitment.
Thats what I said
Don't like that the solution is easy, don't be a Christian. Not being a Christian is surprisingly easy, I'm always amazed that some people want to continue to call themselves Christian yet change all the Christian beliefs. It seems rather pointless, like wanting to be a "Communist" who believes in capitalism, private property and the pursuit of wealth.

Not at all. Changing believes is part and parcel of being a Christian.
Why do you advocate trowing out the bathwater, the baby and the bath.

losthorizon

Where does it say anywhere that God disapproves of sex before marriage? (I don't believe in God btw but show me the proof)

tommy2bad

losthorizon wrote: »

Where does it say anywhere that God disapproves of sex before marriage? (I don't believe in God btw but show me the proof)

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
Its from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Of course suing another Christian in the law courts is also forbidden in this piece so how sex instead of litigation became hot button issue is anyones guess, a lot of Canon lawyers doing the interpretation I guess

MrStuffins

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm unaware of any Christian denomination that believes the instruction that fornication is a sin is not to be taken literally.

Also whether a Christian takes passages in the Bible literally or metaphorically is irrelevant to the question over whether Wolfsbane was personally communicating with God. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of Christianity should be well aware that Christians believe God's word is revealed to humanity through the Bible.

But it's relevant to your argument of "It's in The Bible, perhaps you've heard of it?".

It's like me saying "It's on Wikipedia, perhaps you've heard of it?"

Doc Farrell

These last few pages make for painful reading. The op has wisely disappeared having received her three options, it does, it doesn't and it might make a difference. At this stage the thread is little more than flag waving for entrenched views. I'm glad none of you are train drivers because this express from Galway is well off the tracks.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

But were not taking about biblical standards

Yes we are.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Thats what I said

No, you said that sex itself forms a commitment. You don't have to be a Christian to know that isn't necessarily true.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not at all. Changing believes is part and parcel of being a Christian.

Not if those beliefs contradict the Bible.

Zombrex

MrStuffins wrote: »

But it's relevant to your argument of "It's in The Bible, perhaps you've heard of it?".

No it isn't because he was not asking if the Bible is literal or not, he was asking if the poster was in communication with God, implying that if he wasn't he would have no idea what God wants.

Christians believe that the Bible is God's revealed Word, whether you believe it is all literal or not.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes we are.


No, you said that sex itself forms a commitment. You don't have to be a Christian to know that isn't necessarily true.



Not if those beliefs contradict the Bible.

OK if you say so, I was more thinking in the context of the OP.

The thing is it actually dose, the RCC grants annulments on the grounds of non consummation. So if theirs no sex then the marriage -and this is the important bit- never existed. Not sure how they balance things but that is an admission that sex is part of what makes the marriage. More than the commitment before God in their eyes.

Contradict the bible, never, supersede or clarifies, never a contradiction.

prinz

tommy2bad wrote: »

The thing is it actually dose, the RCC grants annulments on the grounds of non consummation. So if theirs no sex then the marriage -and this is the important bit- never existed. Not sure how they balance things but that is an admission that sex is part of what makes the marriage. More than the commitment before God in their eyes. Contradict the bible, never, supersede or clarifies, never a contradiction.

That's because you are deemed to have entered into the marriage under false pretences.. i.e. you lied and tricked someone into a commitment before God and your community.

It is NOT because the RCC deem you "more married" if you are getting the leg over, than if you have an actual marriage ceremony.

There are many reasons a RCC marriage could be annulled. It has nothing to do with regarding the reasons for annullment as "more than the commitment" before God. It is because those reasons go contrary to what constitutes a valid marriage after the commitment before God.

Monty Burnz

Christians are supposed to be followers of Jesus. What did he have to say on the subject?

Peregrinus

Actually, I don’t think there is a blanket, uniform prohibition on non-marital sex anywhere in the bible. So the question of a fundamentalist literalist interpretation doesn’t arise.

(I'm happy to be proved wrong by those better versed in scripture than I am.)

(On Edit: Monty - Jesus plainly frowned upon adultery and divorce, but had little to say about sex between unmarried people.)

Monty Burnz

Peregrinus wrote: »

(On Edit: Monty - Jesus plainly frowned upon adultery and divorce, but had little to say about sex between unmarried people.)

Thanks Peregrinus.

tommy2bad

prinz wrote: »

That's because you are deemed to have entered into the marriage under false pretences.. i.e. you lied and tricked someone into a commitment before God and your community.

It is NOT because the RCC deem you "more married" if you are getting the leg over, than if you have an actual marriage ceremony.

There are many reasons a RCC marriage could be annulled. It has nothing to do with regarding the reasons for annullment as "more than the commitment" before God. It is because those reasons go contrary to what constitutes a valid marriage after the commitment before God.

Well now we know how they square that one away.
So commitment first, then sex, then whatever else a marriage entails.
Good thing we have celibate men looking after our interests.

JimiTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, I don’t think there is a blanket, uniform prohibition on non-marital sex anywhere in the bible. So the question of a fundamentalist literalist interpretation doesn’t arise.

(I'm happy to be proved wrong by those better versed in scripture than I am.)

(On Edit: Monty - Jesus plainly frowned upon adultery and divorce, but had little to say about sex between unmarried people.)

What is fornication?

Peregrinus

JimiTime wrote: »

What is fornication?

It's from the Latin fornix, an archway. Fornication is what you do in archways. So its sex with a streetwalker, or with a girl - these things are always framed from the male perspective - with a girl that you're not prepared to bring home and acknowledge to your family and friends. Or, in other words, sex with a partner with whom it is not socially acceptable for you to have sex. Which is kind of circular.

"Fornication", of course, is not in the original, which is in Greek. In the context of the letters of Paul, "fornication" is usually a translation of the Greek word "porneia", whose meaning is similarly vague. So far as I know, no writer before Paul used the word, and quite possibly he coined it. Its roots are two other Greek words which mean "bed" and "desire/lust", and it's fairly that Paul uses it to refer to sexual immorality. (In fact modern translations tend to avoid using the term "fornication", and instead translate it it with a phrase like "sexual immorality".) While it's clear from the use of "porneia" that Paul strongly disapproves of sexual immorality, the word is not much help in identifying exactly what he regards as sexually immoral. We can say with confidence that he regarded adultery as immoral, both because he says so more than once and becuase he came from a tradition which strongly affirms the immorality of adultery. But we can't be quite so categorical about all forms of non-marital sex.

JimiTime

Doc Farrell wrote: »

These last few pages make for painful reading. The op has wisely disappeared having received her three options, it does, it doesn't and it might make a difference. At this stage the thread is little more than flag waving for entrenched views. I'm glad none of you are train drivers because this express from Galway is well off the tracks.

You have a habit of coming into threads on your high horse declaring its depressing, painful, [insert explaintive]. Whether you agree or disagree, people are giving their opinions Doc. Most it seems, are trying to do that based on the authority of scripture, or what they consider their churches authority.

Its easy to play to the gallery and be wishy washy. If I recall, you call yourself a Roman Catholic. If you are, then you belong to an organisation with very strong views about sexual matters. That you decide to pick and choose what you want from this is more pseudo catholicism. 'Its painful', 'its depressing etc' just getting tiresome don't you think? How about you come up with arguments that appeal to whatever authority you base YOUR views on. If they are based on the authority of yourself, then others know where they stand. If you are saying that it is based on a common ground such as the revelation of Gods servants, prophets etc I.E The Bible, then make your case with it. As it is, it just comes accross as, 'I think yis are all this that or the other' with little or no substance. I could understand if you were an atheist, but if you are a professing Christian, surely you have to realise that you have to do a lot better than what you've been doing? In fact, if you are a professing Christian, you have a duty to other Christians to be salt for the views you believe they are misrepresenting, otherwise you are just a scoffer trying to divide while feeling self righteous.

tommy2bad

How about you come up with arguments that appeal to whatever authority you base YOUR views on

JimiTime, you don't get catholicism do you?
Its a more pastoral thing than legalistic in practice. Arguments like 'the bible says' or St Paul said' come after looking after the needs of the flock. Its a service not a authority first.

Onesimus

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's from the Latin fornix, an archway. Fornication is what you do in archways. So its sex with a streetwalker, or with a girl - these things are always framed from the male perspective - with a girl that you're not prepared to bring home and acknowledge to your family and friends. Or, in other words, sex with a partner with whom it is not socially acceptable for you to have sex. Which is kind of circular.

"Fornication", of course, is not in the original, which is in Greek. In the context of the letters of Paul, "fornication" is usually a translation of the Greek word "porneia", whose meaning is similarly vague. So far as I know, no writer before Paul used the word, and quite possibly he coined it. Its roots are two other Greek words which mean "bed" and "desire/lust", and it's fairly that Paul uses it to refer to sexual immorality. (In fact modern translations tend to avoid using the term "fornication", and instead translate it it with a phrase like "sexual immorality".) While it's clear from the use of "porneia" that Paul strongly disapproves of sexual immorality, the word is not much help in identifying exactly what he regards as sexually immoral. We can say with confidence that he regarded adultery as immoral, both because he says so more than once and becuase he came from a tradition which strongly affirms the immorality of adultery. But we can't be quite so categorical about all forms of non-marital sex.

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

Peregrinus

Yes. But the Catholic understanding of fornication emerges from Catholic morality, which is heavily influenced by Thomas Aquinas and his approach to natural law, which of course Paul didn't share, because he lived more than a thousand years beforehand. We therefore can't say with any confidence that a definition of fornication in a Catechism written in the late twentieth century is the one that Paul had in mind when he wrote about porneia. Paul might have meant something similar but we can't be sure.

Onesimus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But the Catholic understanding of fornication emerges from Catholic morality, which is heavily influenced by Thomas Aquinas and his approach to natural law, which of course Paul didn't share, because he lived more than a thousand years beforehand. We therefore can't say with any confidence that a definition of fornication in a Catechism written in the late twentieth century is the one that Paul had in mind when he wrote about porneia. Paul might have meant something similar but we can't be sure.

2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.



Sorry to trash your party peregrinus but the Magesterium and many Catholic apologists worth their salt disagree with you. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. It's not an ''expression of theology'' or simply a noble idea. The Church states clearly that it is a grave offense against the dignitiy of marriage. It's unfortunate that you continue to wave the banner of ''I know better than the Church'' when faced with the unabided truth.



But if your not Catholic then I could see why you would contend, but you are Catholic right?

Peregrinus

I know it's the teaching of the Catholic church, Onesimus. I have never suggested otherwise. But the question I'm addressing is not what the Catholic church teaches, but what the bible says.

What the bible says, unambigously, is that questions of sexual morality are important and should be taken seriously. What it also says, pretty consistently, is that adultery and (in the New Testament) divorce are morally wrong. But it has less to say about the specifics of some of the other questions of sexual morality that we face, pre-marital sex being one (and contraception being another). It's up to us, if we take sexual morality seriously, to work out what that requires of us, and the Catholic perspective on this is an attempt to do precisely that. But it's not the only attempt.

The plain fact is that there isn't an unambigous, uniform prohibition of all forms of non-marital sex in scripture, and at least in the OT there appear to be instances of non-marital, and even extra-marital sex which are presented either with approbation or at least without condemnation. A comprehensive account of sexual morality can't be reduced to reading a list of prohibitions out of the scriptures; it requires rather more of us, and it isn't always easy.

Onesimus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I know it's the teaching of the Catholic church, Onesimus. I have never suggested otherwise. But the question I'm addressing is not what the Catholic church teaches, but what the bible says.

What the bible says, unambigously, is that questions of sexual morality are important and should be taken seriously. What it also says, pretty consistently, is that adultery and (in the New Testament) divorce are morally wrong. But it has less to say about the specifics of some of the other questions of sexual morality that we face, pre-marital sex being one (and contraception being another). It's up to us, if we take sexual morality seriously, to work out what that requires of us, and the Catholic perspective on this is an attempt to do precisely that. But it's not the only attempt.

The plain fact is that there isn't an unambigous, uniform prohibition of all forms of non-marital sex in scripture, and at least in the OT there appear to be instances of non-marital, and even extra-marital sex which are presented either with approbation or at least without condemnation. A comprehensive account of sexual morality can't be reduced to reading a list of prohibitions out of the scriptures; it requires rather more of us, and it isn't always easy.

So when the Catholic church says ''Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman'' that they somehow got this interpretation of fornication from scripture wrong? and nobody knows what fornication actually is? I find that very hard to believe peregrinus.

prinz

tommy2bad wrote: »

JimiTime, you don't get catholicism do you? Its a more pastoral thing than legalistic in practice. Arguments like 'the bible says' or St Paul said' come after looking after the needs of the flock. Its a service not a authority first.

LOL, that's one of the worst explanations of Roman Catholicism I have ever seen and one of the reasons I distance myself from Catholicism in this country. Far too many a la carte and cultural "Catholics" who like to bend the 'rules' to fit their own lives, rather than acknowledge the rules and try to live accordingly. But hey, sure ignoring the legalistic approach has served the RCC in Ireland well in the past right? It's not like we are seeing the fruits of decades of people ignoring 'what the bible says' or 'st Paul said' in favour of pleasing themselves. Lesson learned? It seems not.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it has less to say about the specifics of some of the other questions of sexual morality that we face, pre-marital sex being one (and contraception being another). It's up to us, if we take sexual morality seriously, to work out what that requires of us, and the Catholic perspective on this is an attempt to do precisely that. But it's not the only attempt.....The plain fact is that there isn't an unambigous, uniform prohibition of all forms of non-marital sex in scripture

The Bible and Jesus also had very little to say about the specifics of Ponzi schemes and the selling of dodgy prescription drugs over the internet but I am fairly sure we can assume a uniform prohibition from what as said. I'd argue the same logic can be applied to premarital and extramarital sex... there isn't an unambiguous uniform prohibition on stealing your neighbours panties for sexual kicks but I am fairly certain that would have been included in the immoral box.

JimiTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's from the Latin fornix, an archway. Fornication is what you do in archways. So its sex with a streetwalker, or with a girl - these things are always framed from the male perspective - with a girl that you're not prepared to bring home and acknowledge to your family and friends. Or, in other words, sex with a partner with whom it is not socially acceptable for you to have sex. Which is kind of circular.

"Fornication", of course, is not in the original, which is in Greek. In the context of the letters of Paul, "fornication" is usually a translation of the Greek word "porneia", whose meaning is similarly vague. So far as I know, no writer before Paul used the word, and quite possibly he coined it. Its roots are two other Greek words which mean "bed" and "desire/lust", and it's fairly that Paul uses it to refer to sexual immorality. (In fact modern translations tend to avoid using the term "fornication", and instead translate it it with a phrase like "sexual immorality".) While it's clear from the use of "porneia" that Paul strongly disapproves of sexual immorality, the word is not much help in identifying exactly what he regards as sexually immoral. We can say with confidence that he regarded adultery as immoral, both because he says so more than once and becuase he came from a tradition which strongly affirms the immorality of adultery. But we can't be quite so categorical about all forms of non-marital sex.

Let us examine the cultural context, and see if it sheds any light on what you reckon is ambiguity.
What happened to a maiden if it was discovered that she was not a virgin on their wedding night? What was the law in relation to a man and a woman who had sex outside of wedlock? Either there was adultery involved, or virginity involved. One involved stoning, the other involved marriage. If this is the case, then when was it lawful for the Jews to simply have sex outside of wedlock?

I put it to you, that understanding the cultural context means that we can see that sex was only seen as appropriate within the confines of a legitimate relationship, i.e. marriage, and if it was carried out outside of this relationship it was considered wrong. It was either a gross betrayal, i.e. adultery which was punishable by death, or it was made legitimate by marriage.

Your thoughts?

tommy2bad

God ye are a harsh lot.
'The church says' 'the bible says' all so reminiscent of Jesus.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4&version=NIV