? for bible experts

[PLOlover]

I know there is a prohibition against adultery, you know, it's one of the ten commandments, but is there any explicit prohibition against sex out of wedlock between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman? Old or new testament.

Thx.

[MidGe]

I am not a christian at all, but I am familiar with the bible.

I don't think there is any injunction against sex before marriage. There are many othe injunctions against adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, harlots, prostitution, adultery etc...(referred to as "fornicators"). None, that I know of, against pre-marital sex. Go for it, you have the lord's blessing! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[guesswest]

I remember pre-marital sex being explicitly prohibited in the bible countless times, it's been a while but I think Corinthians had a lot to say about it. Perhaps someone who knows the bible better could supply quotes...

[bbjurstrom]

It's def in there, I just have no idea where. But before you forgo sex just because of what some old books says, you should keep in mind that the bible was written by humans not god. Sure some will argue that god influenced the humans who wrote the bible, but even if that is true humans could still have advanced their own ideas and agendas in the text as well (sort of like an ancient form of pork barreling).

[surftheiop]

The bible constantly says not to commit "sexual immorality" which based on the context of the languauges it was written on translates to any sexual interaction outside of marriage.
For example,

"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." (Hebrews 13:4)

Also the bible constantly warns against fornication which is defined on Dictionary.com as
"Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other."

If you all want/need more i think you can just type this into google, not sure if the results will be good or not.

[StepBangin]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a christian at all, but I am familiar with the bible.

I don't think there is any injunction against sex before marriage. There are many othe injunctions against adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, harlots, prostitution, adultery etc...(referred to as "fornicators"). None, that I know of, against pre-marital sex. Go for it, you have the lord's blessing! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, obviously you aren't

[PLOlover]

I was just curious cause my girlfriend and I live together and the other day she said we were "living in sin" you know, just joking, but I told her I didn't know of any statutes, judgements, or commandments that we were breaking.

[madnak]

This is a matter of interpretation, like most of the Bible. Almost any statement about the meaning could be considered accurate from some perspective. From what I know of it, the strictures against premarital sex are much "stronger" than those against, say, homosexuality. But the language is almost always rather vague, and the original Old Testament written in Hebrew and Aramaic was probably an imperfect record of oral traditions. Even if we accept that there was a canonical written version in the time of Moses, such an original copy has been lost to history.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not a christian at all, but I am familiar with the bible.

I don't think there is any injunction against sex before marriage. There are many othe injunctions against adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, harlots, prostitution, adultery etc...(referred to as "fornicators"). None, that I know of, against pre-marital sex. Go for it, you have the lord's blessing! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, obviously you aren't

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Easy too say, but you are not adding anything to the thread to show any different. I should say, I am very familiar with the bible.

[surftheiop]

But the bible clearly states sex outside of marriage is not acceptable, you said it yourself that it tells not to fornicate, please go look up fornicate/fornication and tell me the dictionary doesnt clear up this discussion.

[MidGe]

It does not.

[madnak]

Please explain whether by "fornication" in the Bible you're referring to the Hebrew "zanah" or the Greek "porneia?" That might help clarify how to refute you...

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
The bible constantly says not to commit "sexual immorality" which based on the context of the languauges it was written on translates to any sexual interaction outside of marriage.
For example,

"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." (Hebrews 13:4)

Also the bible constantly warns against fornication which is defined on Dictionary.com as
"Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other."

If you all want/need more i think you can just type this into google, not sure if the results will be good or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church agrees with this:

[ QUOTE ]
Fornication means to have sex when you are not married. Catholicism believes that when a couple has sex prior to marriage, they are furthering yourself away from God's plan.
Catholicism teaches that God made sex into a beautiful and wonderful experience for a married man and woman. When there is fornication, the Church feels that all the beauty of sex is depleted. When God is taken away from an activity, the meaning is less. Sex is meant to be between a married couple.

According to the Catechism, if you took part in fornication, you need to take part in the Sacrament of Reconciliation prior to taking the Eucharist.

Some Catholics do feel that sex before marriage is acceptable. This is contrary to the Church's official teachings.



[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

Well, I don't think using dictionary.com to verify ambiguous meanings in the Bible is a great start. That being said, I claim ignorance on this topic, but am interested to hear from those who know more than me.

Disclaimer: I ain't stopping no matter what any of you say, don't worry.

[MidGe]

Heya bigdaddydvo,

The original, unanswered question as of yet is where in the bible is sex prohibited between unmarried persons (ie no adultery involved) for no monetary gain (ie not with a prositute).

The catholic church may interpret the bible whichever way it wants, that doesn't change the bible content, I presume.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Heya bigdaddydvo,

The original, unanswered question as of yet is where in the bible is sex prohibited between unmarried persons (ie no adultery involved) for no monetary gain (ie not with a prositute).

The catholic church may interpret the bible whichever way it wants, that doesn't change the bible content, I presume.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a lengthy read, but it explains in great detail how the Catholic Church determined and solidified which Sacred Scriptures would constitute the New Testament of the Bible.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Basically, as a Catholic I believe that since my Church had the authority to compile which Books constituted the Bible, that it also has the authority to teach definitively from it. Hence its interpretation of what constitutes fornication is spot on.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heya bigdaddydvo,

The original, unanswered question as of yet is where in the bible is sex prohibited between unmarried persons (ie no adultery involved) for no monetary gain (ie not with a prositute).

The catholic church may interpret the bible whichever way it wants, that doesn't change the bible content, I presume.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a lengthy read, but it explains in great detail how the Catholic Church determined and solidified which Sacred Scriptures would constitute the New Testament of the Bible.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Basically, as a Catholic I believe that since my Church had the authority to compile which Books constituted the Bible, that it also has the authority to teach definitively from it. Hence its interpretation of what constitutes fornication is spot on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not a dangerous assumption in the least. I can foresee no potential problems that could result in assuming infallibility of a bunch of guys in Italy.

[madnak]

That's circular. "Because I'm Catholic, I believe what the Catholics believe." Those arguments have literally no value for those who aren't Catholics.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heya bigdaddydvo,

The original, unanswered question as of yet is where in the bible is sex prohibited between unmarried persons (ie no adultery involved) for no monetary gain (ie not with a prositute).

The catholic church may interpret the bible whichever way it wants, that doesn't change the bible content, I presume.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a lengthy read, but it explains in great detail how the Catholic Church determined and solidified which Sacred Scriptures would constitute the New Testament of the Bible.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Basically, as a Catholic I believe that since my Church had the authority to compile which Books constituted the Bible, that it also has the authority to teach definitively from it. Hence its interpretation of what constitutes fornication is spot on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not a dangerous assumption in the least. I can foresee no potential problems that could result in assuming infallibility of a bunch of guys in Italy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Church's teachings have been consistent for 2000 years. The reason those Books were selected for the New Testament is that they accurately reflected Church teachings. Are you honestly saying that the same group that compiled these books has no right to authoritatively teach from them? Or are you better suited to?

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
That's circular. "Because I'm Catholic, I believe what the Catholics believe." Those arguments have literally no value for those who aren't Catholics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm simply stating my Church's view and why I believe it is authoritative. You may believe what you wish.

[madnak]

This is actually an interesting subject. To me it has always seemed hypocritical of the Protestants to accept the divine Catholic authority in terms of compiling the Bible, but to simultaneously suggest the Catholic Church has no divine authority. Why aren't the apocrypha and alternative gospels accepted by Protestants?

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is actually an interesting subject. To me it has always seemed hypocritical of the Protestants to accept the divine Catholic authority in terms of compiling the Bible, but to simultaneously suggest the Catholic Church has no divine authority. Why aren't the apocrypha and alternative gospels accepted by Protestants?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe me, I've often wondered the same thing. Unfortunately, many Protestant's tend to gloss over Christianity's first 1500 years which was essentially Catholicism.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This is actually an interesting subject. To me it has always seemed hypocritical of the Protestants to accept the divine Catholic authority in terms of compiling the Bible, but to simultaneously suggest the Catholic Church has no divine authority. Why aren't the apocrypha and alternative gospels accepted by Protestants?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the most interesting thing to me is that the catholic church changed the sabbath from saturday to sunday. And yet most protestants don't even realize that the sabbath they observe is chosen by the authority of the very church whose authority they reject.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is actually an interesting subject. To me it has always seemed hypocritical of the Protestants to accept the divine Catholic authority in terms of compiling the Bible, but to simultaneously suggest the Catholic Church has no divine authority. Why aren't the apocrypha and alternative gospels accepted by Protestants?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the most interesting thing to me is that the catholic church changed the sabbath from saturday to sunday. And yet most protestants don't even realize that the sabbath they observe is chosen by the authority of the very church whose authority they reject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Changed to Sunday to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Next.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heya bigdaddydvo,

The original, unanswered question as of yet is where in the bible is sex prohibited between unmarried persons (ie no adultery involved) for no monetary gain (ie not with a prositute).

The catholic church may interpret the bible whichever way it wants, that doesn't change the bible content, I presume.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a lengthy read, but it explains in great detail how the Catholic Church determined and solidified which Sacred Scriptures would constitute the New Testament of the Bible.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Basically, as a Catholic I believe that since my Church had the authority to compile which Books constituted the Bible, that it also has the authority to teach definitively from it. Hence its interpretation of what constitutes fornication is spot on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not a dangerous assumption in the least. I can foresee no potential problems that could result in assuming infallibility of a bunch of guys in Italy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Church's teachings have been consistent for 2000 years. The reason those Books were selected for the New Testament is that they accurately reflected Church teachings. Are you honestly saying that the same group that compiled these books has no right to authoritatively teach from them? Or are you better suited to?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you confirm that the church's teachings are consistent with this:

[ QUOTE ]
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Heya bigdaddydvo,

The original, unanswered question as of yet is where in the bible is sex prohibited between unmarried persons (ie no adultery involved) for no monetary gain (ie not with a prositute).

The catholic church may interpret the bible whichever way it wants, that doesn't change the bible content, I presume.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its noticible (and suprising to me) that no-one's come up with anything simple yet.

Is there really nothing that clearly says no sex before marriage? That would be very disappointing.

chez

[MidGe]

Heya Chez,

No, nothing.




I'll quote Madnak, who is onto it, with his post:

"Please explain whether by "fornication" in the Bible you're referring to the Hebrew "zanah" or the Greek "porneia?" That might help clarify how to refute you...".

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heya bigdaddydvo,

The original, unanswered question as of yet is where in the bible is sex prohibited between unmarried persons (ie no adultery involved) for no monetary gain (ie not with a prositute).

The catholic church may interpret the bible whichever way it wants, that doesn't change the bible content, I presume.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its noticible (and suprising to me) that no-one's come up with anything simple yet.

Is there really nothing that clearly says no sex before marriage? That would be very disappointing.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
It's clear but (as always) subject to interpretation. There are various passages that say marriage is holy but fornicators, whoremongers, adulterers, etc are sinners - unfortunately, there's no glossary of terms as to what constitutes a fornicator (plus the translation issues) so you're left with religious authority figures to give their interpretations.

[surftheiop]

READ MY POST, IT SAYS NO FORNICATION, FORNICATION = SEX BETWEEN UNMARRIED PEOPLE

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
READ MY POST, IT SAYS NO FORNICATION, FORNICATION = SEX BETWEEN UNMARRIED PEOPLE

[/ QUOTE ]
Then surely, you can aide me since I'm no where near as well-versed in the Bible as some of the people in this thread. Madnak earlier asked: "Please explain whether by "fornication" in the Bible you're referring to the Hebrew "zanah" or the Greek "porneia?"" I think that this could be important. Which are you referring to?

Or are you basing your claim solely on a translation?

[Peter666]

Here is your authoritative answer from the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas:

Whether simple fornication is a mortal sin?

Objection 1. It would seem that simple fornication is not a mortal sin. For things that come under the same head would seem to be on a par with one another. Now fornication comes under the same head as things that are not mortal sins: for it is written (Acts 15:29): "That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." But there is not mortal sin in these observances, according to 1 Tim. 4:4, "Nothing is rejected that is received with thanksgiving." Therefore fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 2. Further, no mortal sin is the matter of a Divine precept. But the Lord commanded (Hosea 1:2): "Go take thee a wife of fornications, and have of her children of fornications." Therefore fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 3. Further, no mortal sin is mentioned in Holy Writ without disapprobation. Yet simple fornication is mentioned without disapprobation by Holy Writ in connection with the patriarchs. Thus we read (Genesis 16:4) that Abraham went in to his handmaid Agar; and further on (Genesis 30:5,9) that Jacob went in to Bala and Zelpha the handmaids of his wives; and again (Genesis 38:18) that Juda was with Thamar whom he thought to be a harlot. Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 4. Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity. But simple fornication is not contrary to charity, neither as regards the love of God, since it is not a sin directly against. God, nor as regards the love of our neighbor, since thereby no one is injured. Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 5. Further, every mortal sin leads to eternal perdition. But simple fornication has not this result: because a gloss of Ambrose [The quotation is from the Gloss of Peter Lombard, who refers it to St. Ambrose: whereas it is from Hilary the deacon] on 1 Tim. 4:8, "Godliness is profitable to all things," says: "The whole of Christian teaching is summed up in mercy and godliness: if a man conforms to this, even though he gives way to the inconstancy of the flesh, doubtless he will be punished, but he will not perish." Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.

Objection 6. Further, Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi) that "what food is to the well-being of the body, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the human race." But inordinate use of food is not always a mortal sin. Therefore neither is all inordinate sexual intercourse; and this would seem to apply especially to simple fornication, which is the least grievous of the aforesaid species.

On the contrary, It is written (Tobit 4:13): "Take heed to keep thyself . . . from all fornication, and beside thy wife never endure to know a crime." Now crime denotes a mortal sin. Therefore fornication and all intercourse with other than one's wife is a mortal sin.

Further, nothing but mortal sin debars a man from God's kingdom. But fornication debars him, as shown by the words of the Apostle (Galatians 5:21), who after mentioning fornication and certain other vices, adds: "They who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." Therefore simple fornication is a mortal sin.

Further, it is written in the Decretals (XXII, qu. i, can. Praedicandum): "They should know that the same penance is to be enjoined for perjury as for adultery, fornication, and wilful murder and other criminal offenses." Therefore simple fornication is a criminal or mortal sin.

I answer that, Without any doubt we must hold simple fornication to be a mortal sin, notwithstanding that a gloss [St. Augustine, QQ. in Deut., qu. 37 on Dt. 23:17, says: "This is a prohibition against going with whores, whose vileness is venial." For instead of "venial" it should be "venal," since such is the wanton's trade. On order to make this evident, we must take note that every sin committed directly against human life is a mortal sin. Now simple fornication implies an inordinateness that tends to injure the life of the offspring to be born of this union. For we find in all animals where the upbringing of the offspring needs care of both male and female, that these come together not indeterminately, but the male with a certain female, whether one or several; such is the case with all birds: while, on the other hand, among those animals, where the female alone suffices for the offspring's upbringing, the union is indeterminate, as in the case of dogs and like animals. Now it is evident that the upbringing of a human child requires not only the mother's care for his nourishment, but much more the care of his father as guide and guardian, and under whom he progresses in goods both internal and external. Hence human nature rebels against an indeterminate union of the sexes and demands that a man should be united to a determinate woman and should abide with her a long time or even for a whole lifetime. Hence it is that in the human race the male has a natural solicitude for the certainty of offspring, because on him devolves the upbringing of the child: and this certainly would cease if the union of sexes were indeterminate.

This union with a certain definite woman is called matrimony; which for the above reason is said to belong to the natural law. Since, however, the union of the sexes is directed to the common good of the whole human race, and common goods depend on the law for their determination, as stated above (I-II, 90, 2), it follows that this union of man and woman, which is called matrimony, is determined by some law. What this determination is for us will be stated in the Third Part of this work (Supplement,050, seqq.), where we shall treat of the sacrament of matrimony. Wherefore, since fornication is an indeterminate union of the sexes, as something incompatible with matrimony, it is opposed to the good of the child's upbringing, and consequently it is a mortal sin.

Nor does it matter if a man having knowledge of a woman by fornication, make sufficient provision for the upbringing of the child: because a matter that comes under the determination of the law is judged according to what happens in general, and not according to what may happen in a particular case.

Reply to Objection 1. Fornication is reckoned in conjunction with these things, not as being on a par with them in sinfulness, but because the matters mentioned there were equally liable to cause dispute between Jews and Gentiles, and thus prevent them from agreeing unanimously. For among the Gentiles, fornication was not deemed unlawful, on account of the corruption of natural reason: whereas the Jews, taught by the Divine law, considered it to be unlawful. The other things mentioned were loathsome to the Jews through custom introduced by the law into their daily life. Hence the Apostles forbade these things to the Gentiles, not as though they were unlawful in themselves, but because they were loathsome to the Jews, as stated above (I-II, 103, 4, ad 3).

Reply to Objection 2. Fornication is said to be a sin, because it is contrary to right reason. Now man's reason is right, in so far as it is ruled by the Divine Will, the first and supreme rule. Wherefore that which a man does by God's will and in obedience to His command, is not contrary to right reason, though it may seem contrary to the general order of reason: even so, that which is done miraculously by the Divine power is not contrary to nature, though it be contrary to the usual course of nature. Therefore just as Abraham did not sin in being willing to slay his innocent son, because he obeyed God, although considered in itself it was contrary to right human reason in general, so, too, Osee sinned not in committing fornication by God's command. Nor should such a copulation be strictly called fornication, though it be so called in reference to the general course of things. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "When God commands a thing to be done against the customs or agreement of any people, though it were never done by them heretofore, it is to be done"; and afterwards he adds: "For as among the powers of human society, the greater authority is obeyed in preference to the lesser, so must God in preference to all."

Reply to Objection 3. Abraham and Jacob went in to their handmaidens with no purpose of fornication, as we shall show further on when we treat of matrimony (Supplement,065, 5, ad 2). As to Juda there is no need to excuse him, for he also caused Joseph to be sold.

Reply to Objection 4. Simple fornication is contrary to the love of our neighbor, because it is opposed to the good of the child to be born, as we have shown, since it is an act of generation accomplished in a manner disadvantageous to the future child.

Reply to Objection 5. A person, who, while given to works of piety, yields to the inconstancy of the flesh, is freed from eternal loss, in so far as these works dispose him to receive the grace to repent, and because by such works he makes satisfaction for his past inconstancy; but not so as to be freed by pious works, if he persist in carnal inconstancy impenitent until death.

Reply to Objection 6. One copulation may result in the begetting of a man, wherefore inordinate copulation, which hinders the good of the future child, is a mortal sin as to the very genus of the act, and not only as to the inordinateness of concupiscence. On the other hand, one meal does not hinder the good of a man's whole life, wherefore the act of gluttony is not a mortal sin by reason of its genus. It would, however, be a mortal sin, if a man were knowingly to partake of a food which would alter the whole condition of his life, as was the case with Adam.

Nor is it true that fornication is the least of the sins comprised under lust, for the marriage act that is done out of sensuous pleasure is a lesser sin.

[Hopey]

Out of curiosity:

[i]Edit: obviously the fourth option should have been "...did wait until I was married until I had sex"

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is your authoritative answer from the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas:

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing authoritative about Aquinas. We have already established elewhere with quotes that he was a lunatic.

I see where you confusion and odd ideas come from. You are not following what you call the word of god, the bible, but the word of men. No wonder!

[Peter666]

Yes, Aquinas was a lunatic, Shakespeare couldn't write a sonnet, and Mozart had no sense of melody. Just another day in MidGe's world, where the only reality is the one you make up.

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, Aquinas was a lunatic, Shakespeare couldn't write a sonnet, and Mozart had no sense of melody. Just another day in MidGe's world, where the only reality is the one you make up.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[MidGe]

If advocating death for heretics is not lunacy, it seems to be you that live in some sort of made up reality I would wish no part of.

[LadyWrestler]

Sorry if my /images/graemlins/grin.gif offended you. I hope you have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

No offense at all. I thought it was sarcasm. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Have a great day too.

[Riddick]

If you're a Christian I wouldn't concern yourself too much with Jewish rules.