They are claiming that they don't know what is fornication

they can check the dictionary.

they dont need a bible for that.

tpia@:


The purpose of the thread seems to be to promote s.exual immorality and casual s.ex though i still fail to see the reason why some are permanently parked here and expending lots of energy trying to persuade others of the necessity of fornication.

Presumptuous nonsense - who has spoken about the 'necessity of fornication'?

The issue here is going beyond a surface understanding of what was interpreted as fornication and seeking the root of the instructions. To the simple minded like you, any attempt to gain a deeper understanding equals persuading others of the necessity of fornication?

wetu:

They are not really claiming that fornication is not allowed. They are claiming that they don't know what is fornication. They want to know the Greek word that Paul used etc. Since when did Greek replace the Holy Spirit?

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God - if you are not interested in understanding the Word of God, then what is the foundation of your Christianity?

We are born again Christians, because God knew that not everyone can study Greek, He gave the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. You must be born again.

That others want to be Berean Christians and search the scriptures themselves doesn't mean they don't have the Holy Spirit. If someone didn't attempt to study Greek in the first place, there would be no way you would comprehend the scriptures.

No one is asking YOU to study Greek - if you are unable to understand the premise of the discussion, it would do you a lot of good to step aside and stop making asinine comments.

For those interested in getting a better understanding of what is being discussed here, see the following translation - an attempt to be as 'literal' and 'true' to the Greek 'original'

1 Corinthians 7:2 (Young's Literal Translation)

2and because of the whoredom let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her proper husband.

This appears to indicate the Greek word 'porneia' is more akin to 'prostitution' or 'whoredom', or at least could have more than one meaning?

Interesting link below:


http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co7.pdf - go to verse 7:2 and see the word porneia itself translated as prostitution. . . .still curious as to why it became 'accepted' as meaning fornication instead.

.

tpia@:

^You need to spell out what you're saying in plain english- and no need to catch féelings either. Na you know wetin you dey do for closet.

Are you saying it is okay for a christian to engage in premarital s.ex and are you also saying the bible encourages random s.ex between unmarried people.

You need to ask more questions instead of pretending to know what people are thinking. No need to claim to possess mind reading abilities.

Don't feel compelled to respond to every thread even when it is clear you have little understanding of the issues being discussed.

I don't think it is okay to engage in pre-marital sex and I haven't said it is ok at any point in this thread - I believe sex should be between a married couple. Even with the above translation of Corinthians, it is very clear that 'whoredom' involves unmarried sex-ual partners and that is condemned.

However, pre-marital sex in itself is not the sole subject of debate here - there are a number of lines of inquiry that could be followed:

1. What is the 'original' meaning of the word translated 'fornication' in certain translations in Corinthians?

2. If this word means specifically prostitution, can this be casually 'extended' to include any form of intercourse outside marriage?

3. By inference from Leviticus, t sex outside of marriage is not encouraged, but why is simply paying a dowry 'ok' for having sex with a virgin while adultery is punishable by death? Is there more that needs to be understood here?

4. Is Paul's message in the passage above directed at solely avoiding 'whoredom' (or prostitution) and is being 'extended' to mean more than originally intended? Note this doesn't mean that I believe Paul supported pre-marital sex!

Thanks for raising some key questions on the subject debosky.
The first question is hard because porneia was used to speak specifically about adultery in Corinthians. So if it doesn't mean "sexual immorality" in general, then it may be used in a couple ways. Thus, looking at those texts wont be of much help for the discussion.

I feel that I can only suggest an answer to the 3rd, that being that taking sleeping with a virgin out of wedlock is creating "damaging goods" while adultery is defiling someones "property". Lets face it, back in those times they were sort of treated that way, if not treated that way flat out.

I dont really have an answer to the other two questions, nor how I would go about finding the answers.

Since most of the posts after mine have just been opinions and views with no new evidences for one thing or another coming from scripture, I think the productivity of this thread has come to a close. I would be interested if debosky had some answers to those 4 questions, and how he/she came to them. But really, any further discussions on the topic seems like it would be more constructive if it was though private messages.

Thank you.

.

VincentVan:

Thanks for raising some key questions on the subject debosky.
The first question is hard because porneia was used to speak specifically about adultery in Corinthians. So if it doesn't mean "intimate immorality" in general, then it may be used in a couple ways. Thus, looking at those texts wont be of much help for the discussion.

I feel that I can only suggest an answer to the 3rd, that being that taking sleeping with a virgin out of wedlock is creating "damaging goods" while adultery is defiling someones "property". Lets face it, back in those times they were sort of treated that way, if not treated that way flat out.

I dont really have an answer to the other two questions, nor how I would go about finding the answers.

Since most of the posts after mine have just been opinions and views with no new evidences for one thing or another coming from scripture, I think the productivity of this thread has come to a close. I would be interested if debosky had some answers to those 4 questions, and how he/she came to them. But really, any further discussions on the topic seems like it would be more constructive if it was though private messages.

Please not through pm. I've been following this thread ever since it was posted.

I'm enjoying the thread.

tpia@:

@ debosky

o ti bu mi tan loju ara e abi?

Iwo lo koko bu mi o. . . .emi o le bu e lai lai, iyawo mi atata.

fornication is not a sin. . .

It seems like this thread has died. I was hoping there would be more rebuttals, some other passages to support one side or the other of the argument. Without any more scriptural evidence I think I must conclude, at least for myself, that fornication, as defined as premarital sex, is ill advised, but does not constitute a sin.

VincentVan:

It seems like this thread has died. I was hoping there would be more rebuttals, some other passages to support one side or the other of the argument. Without any more scriptural evidence I think[b] I must conclude, at least for myself, that fornication, as defined as premarital sex, is ill advised, but does not constitute a sin.[/b]

We knew that all along! Who were you trying to fool?

To the rest I say: Not only is fornication ill-advised, but it is also a sin.


1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Did god fornicate?

http://i.imgur.com/RUnuK.jpg

wetu:

To the rest I say: Not only is fornication ill-advised, but it is also a sin.


1Co 6:9  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

To anybody who actually has read this whole thread, this doesn't help anyone here since fornication here doesn't mean "premarital sex" it means "immoral sex" which has yet to be seen to include premarital sex.

gotizsata:

Did god fornicate?

http://i.imgur.com/RUnuK.jpg

Did God get married?

Seriously people, new relevant scriptural texts are needed to argue that premarital sex is a sin.  Using "porneia" translated to fornication is so wholly ignorant.  Not being able to find any other texts other than this misused Corinthian text is actually pretty embarrassing.  I am not particularity convinced of anything, but without biblical backing, I refuse to view people that choose to have premarital sex as sinners, living their lives apart from God's will.

I am not particularity convinced of anything

true that.

I refuse to view people that choose to have premarital sex as sinners

its a free world.

you can hold whatever view you prefer.

god fornicated
with mud to produce adam
with ribs to produce eve
and with mary to produce jesus
please reply after you read the bible and stop wasting time

gotizsata:

god fornicated
with mud to produce adam
with ribs to produce eve
and with mary to produce jesus
please reply after you read the bible and stop wasting time

God had immoral sex with mud?


Matthew 1:22-23
Isaiah 7:14

what definition of fornication are you using?

god used his body(hands) and mud to produce an offspring called adam,

gotizsata:

god used his body(hands) and mud to produce an offspring called adam,

I smell a troll. It is true that God formed Adam with clay, but where does it say He used His hands?  And it is not simply forming the shape of Adam that gave him life, it was God breathing His breath of life into him.  Nowhere in Genesis 1 or 2 does it say that God even has a body.

gotizsata:

please reply after you read the bible and stop wasting time

It seems like you may skim over what the Bible says, but to participate in debate you should do close reading.  If you don't know what close reading is, I suggest you look it up.

I want to resurrect a really interesting question asked earlier on in the thread by debosky.

debosky: The second question to all in general is - when exactly is 'marriage' deemed to have occurred in the sight of God? Is it when you both agree to be married and make your pledges to one another (either privately or publicly) or when you sign a legal document, or when you 'solemnize' the union in a church?

Who wants to have a go first?

By looking at Genesis 2:24-15

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

It could be argued that simply having sex makes someone a spouse. A person is united to his wife, and they became one flesh. But really, the title of wife is giving here before the mentioning of sex. What makes it complicated for me is that the title "wife" was implimented here at a time where there was no culture to define it, but the text was probably written at a time where a culture probably had defined it.

John 4:16-18 may also be a relevant text.

16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17 “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”

The debatable words here are "the man you now have". Is this saying that she was sexually active with this person? I don't know why else the man would be brought up in this context (make sure to look at context) unless she was. If there could be an older version of this, perhaps as close to the original as possible, I would like to see how the words would be literally translated. I think this would originally be Hebrew, right?

If it doesn't mean she was having sex with the man, the text wouldn't be useful here, but if she was, it could mean that just having sex is not enough to constitute marriage. Common law marriage didn't exist in those times, to my knowledge, so a woman residing with a man, presumably having a sexual relationship, did not constitute a "husband- wife" relationship in the eyes of Jesus. But then again, perhaps Jesus was saying she had not been married to the man in the eyes of the people. I think this text should be studied in more depth since it is Jesus' own words being recorded.

I will look for more relevant texts in the future, but for now, I have not been able to conclude when marriage would occur through my research.

Thanks for the post debosky, and Thelstan for bringing it back up. I am very interested if other people can find relevant texts.

god male, mud female
it is obvious

unless you are saying god is female hahahahahah

and then adam was added into the mix
god, adam, mud



but seriously guys god fornicated with mary,  this is so obvious
he took her

look at the pic
it is all there
http://i.imgur.com/RUnuK.jpg

obvious troll was obvious.
Talk about wasting time, gotizsata doesn't even have the chronology of creation right, what a dolt.

[size=13pt]^{Who said fornication is a sin ?} [/size]

like many christians you have a mastered the specialty of being abusive, clap clap clap I am sure Jesus is very proud.
I hope you have looked at the pic, it is very informative, a picture is like 1000 words, here is the link again
http://i.imgur.com/RUnuK.jpg

I showed no mastery of abuse, but merely pointed out your purpose on this thread, and that is to troll. Honestly, Ive seen much more creative attempts to get a rise out of people. I mean, you even resulted to a re-post.

Anyone who read the first chapter of Luke would know that the chronology of your crude comic is laughable. John the baptist, who was born from an old barren couple, was to prepare people for the coming of Jesus, and his mother was pregnant with him 6 months before an angel came to the virgin Mary to tell her that she would give birth to Jesus. The birth of Jesus was a well planned and prepared event, proceeded with another miraculous pregnancy.

So all those 1000 words of the picture just go to show that you nor that artist have any real idea about what was written in the bible. Try to be more creative in your future trolling, this sad attempt only demonstrated your lack of knowledge rather than your ability to bend the truth.

The picture just shows God and mary, and the likely occurrences of that time.
fornication at its best and very much in line with the discussion in this thread
we all know that whatever god does it not a sin
if god does something, it is okay
so fornication should be no different

troll.

@VincentVan
it may give you an instant hard on to call be a troll, either way, I speak the truth.
God was not married to Mary and they made a baby together.
It is really very simple