It all depends on what you mean by scripture. For anyone wondering, yeah, sex with anyone excepted for your spouse is explicitly expressed to be against the Lord's commandments in both the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants, not to mention modern revelation.
But assuming you don't accept those as scripture, do you accept the Bible as such? If there was a scripture in there against, would you take is as gospel?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think since the thread title is asking about how this applies to Christianity, then only those posters who are active Christians should reply!
posted
Promethius, I am having a hard time finding the verses you quoted, and I don't have a computer-searchable NIV. Could you give us a hint where to find them?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the first time I seriously read through the Bible, I was surprised by the absence of such a passage. Especially considering the sermons and sunday school lessons I'd heard.
posted
First time I read through the Bible, I was floored by how many of our common cliches are bible quotes. Sort of like when I learned to play chess. "Wow! Keep the faith actually means something!"
All of sudden, Ed Norton movies were much funnier.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw http://www.biblegateway.com/ is a great site for searching for stuff like this though I don't know if they are violating any copyrights or not with the different versions.
However, I'm not going to look up something promethus should provide, on principle
posted
While you all go find the scriptures... <grin>
I have to agree that basically what I've been taught is that the biblical term "immoral" encompasses the idea of fornication (sex before marriage by the unmarried).
Now whether you guys are going to prove that literally true or not, I think it is the spirit of the scripture. The whole idea is to keep sex as special within a monogamous relationship.
And logically speaking -- this is just a good idea for health reasons, emotional reasons, etc. even if I wasn't a Christian.
posted
Maybe that was like me watching Star Wars for the first time when I was 18 and realizing that the music they played on radio commercials for some exterminating company went with Darth Vader.
posted
Even if translations were copyrightable, I somehow doubt those who do the translation are opposed to its distribution.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh, and I know the Catholic Church has interpreted the injunction against adultery to include all form of sexual sin based on Jesus's "look at a woman lustfully=commiting adultery in your heart"... it would not surprise me if the Catholic position on sexual sin merely carried through to the Protestant denominations as well.
Personally, I think we just make too big a deal out of sexual sin... my pet theory is that it's been harped on because:
1)physical evidence of the act was conclusive: a pregnant woman out of wedlock *had* to have had sex... there was no disputing it and so people got hyper about it because there was no way to cover/hush it up.
2)it's the least obviously harmful sin and so needed some extra enthusiasm. It's easy to see why lying, killing, and stealing are wrong... not so much so to understand why making someone else feel good is, so we had to make it REALLY bad.
posted
Jim, just for the record, I completely and utterly disagree with your belief that sexual sin is no big deal.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1 Thessalonians 4 1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. 2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
quote:Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n Function: noun : consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other
Also, I'd be very suspicious of using the KJV for any sort of nit-picky argument on definitions. The translators played it fast and loose with a number of words in it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what percent of the Bible deals with sex compared to everything else. There is a lot of sex in the stories in the Old testament and Song of Solomon and Esther too. I don't know the answer. It is an interesting question.
posted
Interesting link and article, AJ. However, I don't think it downplays the meaning of the word at all....
It says:
quote: Strong's Concordance gives 19th century meanings to Greek and Hebrew words found in the Bible. It describes "pornea," as having a somewhat broader usage in Biblical times, compared to today. When used literally, it includes three activities: prostitution, adultery and incest. Figuratively it means idolatry, or sexual intercourse between unmarried persons
then it says:
quote: However, most conservative Christian churches have greatly expanded the English term "fornication." ... it now includes "premarital sex,
How exactly is "sexual intercourse between unmarried persons" (first paragraph) any different than "pre-marital sex" (second paragraphy)?? In both cases, they are unmarried.
And I just realized, AJ, that you may be taking this personally, and I am NOT posting in that way! I'm just defending my Christian beliefs, and have NOT been thinking in terms of the choices of lifestyles of other people on this board. What I am saying applies to ME, and I'm not judging anyone else. I am a sinner myself.
You know I love ya, AJ -- please don't take this debate to the personal level.
posted
Farmgirl, I take it you're talking to me? I don't know if you're familiar with the website as a whole, but as the domain name should imply, they don't take sides. They're not arguing one way or the other, merely explaining what different sects believe and citing probable causes.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I didn't mean it personally. That was the first link I grabbed that seemed halfway decent for a rebuttal. I'm sure I could find an even more explicit one. The thing is even most of the extremely conservative sermons I've heard on the word Pornea make it clear that the stuff going on and where the greek word was in common usage was in the context of idol worship not just ordinary sex outside of marriage.
posted
Farmgirl, the point of that link is that "pornea," which is translated "fornication" in the KJV, does not in fact refer to premarital sex. However, because many conservative Christians consider premarital sex to be immoral, the word "fornication" has come to include premarital sex in some (but by no means all) its definitions. By saying that "pornea" means "fornication," and "fornication" includes premarital sex, you have the effect before the cause.
----
kat, I'd really rather not answer your question in detail here, because elaborating on it would offend many Mormons. But, no, I don't consider the Book of Mormon or any of the other ancillary works to be Christian scripture, or relevant to discussions of Christianity.
It's my opinion that the BoM was written expressly to address some of the perceived flaws and limitations in the KJV that were, even in the 19th century, fairly popular philosophical targets. Unfortunately, while I'm all for letting Mormons self-identify as Christians, this means that discussing "Christianity" using the Book of Mormon is like discussing Windows 95 using Windows 98; many bugs are patched and features (and other bugs) added, meaning that not all criticisms apply across the versions.
posted
DKW, I did not include the rest of the quote because, I took the whole quote to mean that a person should not be compelled to marry. It explains it if you read the whole thing. Its from Corinthians 7 for whoever is interested in looking it up. Ive gotta run to the dining hall, but I will link/quote whatever I posted before. Im not abandoning the thread I started.
Edit: I think I sounded snide, and I did not mean to
quote: Farmgirl, the point of that link is that "pornea," which is translated "fornication" in the KJV, does not in fact refer to premarital sex
Sorry, Tom -- I went back and read it again, and just don't get that (what you said above) from that article. It does say the meaning has been BROADENED to include perhaps more than it should, but it never explicitly says that it DOES NOT refer to sex between people who are not married.
posted
*grin* I’m not arguing for sex outside of marriage, I’m just arguing against manipulating texts. The verse from 1 Corinthians is in reference to remaining engaged and celibate rather than marrying and having sex. It has nothing to do with whether marrying a virgin is better than marrying a non-virgin.
Not to mention, that the section begins with Paul saying, “Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think . . .”
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most Christians know that the Christian church does not approve of premarital sex, some people just choose to do it anyway...and then use "love" or "drives" to rationalize it.
As for whether you are saved with or without works, it is Christ that saves you...not your behavior, or works. However if you are a Christian you should want to follow the teaching of the church. If you believe in what Christ taught, you should want to help others, avoid immoralty, and so forth.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It refers to people whether married or unmarried engaging in sexual acts as a form of worship. Generally speaking, if married, the sex acts were not with the spouse. Those would fall under the "adultery" heading. All of them were wrong because of the implications with idolatry.
posted
I think, as in a lot of "Christianity" debates I've heard lately, this is just more evidence of the weakness of basing an all-inclusive religious doctrine on one text that has many different translations even in our own language. I would argue that an "infallible" Bible would make it a lot more difficult to argue against itself.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I elaborated a bit in an edit above while you were in the process of replying. But an explicit admonition against extra-marital sex in the Bible, while it would fail to change my own opinion on the issue, would at least convince me that the Bible specifically addresses and censures the practice.
-----------
Farmgirl, I'm not enough of an ancient language expert to know how "pornea" was applied in all cases; I'll defer to DKW on this one. But it seems clear enough that it describes a category of practices considerably more severe than premarital sex -- and while some authors, I'm sure, may well have considered that act "pornea" in the same way that some people today consider masturbation ghastly and unforgivable, I don't see anything to indicate that this was part of the common usage. At the most, we can conclude that the Bible censures idolatrous, aberrant sex -- which may or may not include extramarital sex, depending on whether you're starting from the presumption of aberration.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, I posted the religioustolerance link...
DKW, that verse is ostensibly about the choice between celibacy and marriage, yes. However, I think its implications are clear: under Pauline doctrine, those two choices are the only moral options. In other words, his words of caution refer to choosing between the options themselves; by omitting premarital sex from the list he showed it wasn't something a Godly man even considered.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:would at least convince me that the Bible specifically addresses and censures the practice.
I think my puzzlement comes from a perception that you didn't believe in the Bible anyway, so why would it matter if it did specifically address it?
And...
Considering how the scriptures against homosexuality get dismissed, I have no confidence at all that a specific stricture against pre-marital sex would close the discussion today.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just FYI, most of the conservative Christian churches that I know of that believe in the total infalibility and inerrancy of the Bible, do have the little caveat somewhere in the doctrinal statment of "only in the original language", though the KJV-only crowd has gotten away from that.
The liberal deonminations define the infalability and inerrancy differently to begin with and I believe only when it is speaking on spiritual matters, but I defer to dkw on that.
posted
I think there's a lot of debate, even among very devout Christians, over whether Paul's letters, containing personal opinions he occasionally admits are fallible, are in fact scripture.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Farmgirl, so you think that we don't have to be charitable and kind unto others, and we can still earn Salvation??
By faith only? So I can just sit down and be idle and let my neighbor starve and, only because I believe, I am saved anyway?
I am sorry, Salvation is having Faith and being charitable. If we don't show charity we can't change the world for the better.
Sorry to backtrack here, but thinking on this somehow made me realize I'm closer to the tradition I was raised in than I realized.
So I'm a Congregationalist by tradition, a group strongly influenced by Calvin.
I am not a fan of predestination.
However, having thought on this little chicken-or-the-egg conundrum that comes up often, I have to currently think I'm with (a variation of) Calvin on this one, in the sense that through faith one will be compelled to do works (I think subconciously; I don't think acting conciously to do a work is actually a work), I think that people can do works without ever having a professed opinion on Jesus, and I think (as I believe is in line with the Bible) that it is impossible to tell the two apart, and that Christians ought not to try. However, my modification to this is that I'm a universalist in a way, and ultimately I don't think it matters if you've publically confessed to the concrete idea of Jesus, what matters is if your inward heart/soul has accepted the abstract concepts of Jesus and his teachings.
This no doubt makes me a heretic of the highest order.
But then, I've gotten used to the idea that most conservative Christians wouldn't even consider my denomination truly christian anymore (even if they give public recognition grudgingly, thanks to the fact that we were in the USA first ), being an explicit heretic doesn't bother me.
posted
And in case anyone is interested, here is the Mormon stance on the issue:
The reason sexual sin is so serious, second only to the shedding of innocent blood, is because of the belief in the sanctity of human life that underlies them both. It is as wicked to tamper with the God-given mechanisms by which mortal life is brought about, to engage in behavior that might bright life about when unauthorized (marriage being God's authorization), as it is to prematurely end a life. Either way, one is making decisions about life without the authority of God, in our opinions.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, there's been debate here over just how much of what Paul wrote was meant to be taken as gospel.
Two thousand years of controversey could all have been solved by a good technical writer. But that's what I mean - even something flat out unambiguous would still be debated, because it would still be a conflict of desires.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
*just joking! really!*![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
