Writer's block = bad thing, especially when it comes to a dissertation. It is getting so bad that I am having increasing difficulty expressing myself in other areas as well, including on this blog. I have started to write three different posts over the course of the past week or so, and....nothing. Maybe I need to do some quilting or something.
So, brace yourselves, and please be prepared for babbling, incoherency, and errors in spelling and grammar.
-This weekend, I think I sat through the absolute worst commencement address that I have ever had the misfortune of witnessing. It was so bad that it became funny. I was very thankful I was in the back row of faculty on the platform because I had to cover my face several times to muffle laughter. The progression from polite attention to boredom to incredulity to suppressed laughter on the faces of the audience was, however, quite entertaining.
-Carolyn McCully put into words part of what I have been thinking on for a while, with regard to physical beauty, but have been unable to coherently address, in a post last week. (yes, I think I do have too many commas in that sentence)
"What about complimenting her when she is doing beautiful things? We always hear that inner beauty is supposed to be more important than outer beauty, but it doesn't seem to get praised as often--which tempts women to doubt the veracity of that statement."Why do we women doubt the appeal of inner beauty? Well, to be candid, it's because we forget that our Creator is the ultimate arbiter of beauty. We are awash in makeover messages and as such His perspective is often silenced. From TV shows to magazines, we are drowning in Before and After images. At any given time during a day, there's a roomful of people on TV gushing and crying over the physical transformation of some reality show participant. Everybody and his neighbor shows up to applaud weight loss, a new hairstyle, or a wardrobe overhaul. But where is the applause for inner beauty? Where are the TV cameras for the Big Reveal of a renovated character"
In a culture where women are judged and valued on the basis of their attractiveness is it any wonder that inner beauty has taken a back seat? Has our culture simply received what we have asked for? Is there any cultural reinforcement of "inner beauty"?
-In a related line of thinking, lets talk about virginity.Valued by some, but not by others? While God's call for sexual abstinence outside of marriage has not changed, the secular culture appears to have lost all regard for virginity outside of the young. Otherwise it is regarded as a quaint conviction or possibly born of immaturity or some sort of pathology. Even within the church, sexual abstinence is regarded by some as culturally irrelevant or improbable.
Valued in some, but not in others? While some young women have taken to auctioning their virginity to the highest bidder, I doubt that a 30+ year old virginal woman or a man of any age would get many bids. Clearly the value placed in "virginity" for auction is not about virginity per se. Even in less crass circumstances, I wonder how much of the value of virginity that does exist is about the value of obedience to God?
Over-valued by some? How many sins are there that change how you are defined as a person after one incidence? We are all sinners, are we not? We've all joined Jimmy Carter in lusting in our hearts, have we not? Do we rule out others as mates who have lied once in their life? When it is said that you should only marry a virgin, is that because they have been obedient to God, or for some other reason?
Okay, that is enough rambling for now. Don't say I didn't warn you.
32 comments:
i hear the big, wide, open praries and spaces of texas are great for curing writer's block! :)
***
on beauty and virginity ... and how the church, and/or christians view such ... what is often said and preached is one thing ... but what is often practiced is another. hummm ... "and they shall know them by their fruit" is what comes to mind here.
Gee L, you are in a bad way my old mate.
I reckon that you need a holiday.
You have been working very hard!!!
You put your heart and soul into all that you do, but hey don't over do it, eh?
"We are all sinners, are we not?"
Yes, yes we are.
"Do we rule out others as mates who have lied once in their life? "
No we most definitely don't!
My two cents worth L!
We'd get on well I reckon L.
I too am a bit of a rambler!
Oh,, okay..... I'm a big rambler!!
A waffler, even!
An interesting post.
I think that the cultural scene encourages men and women alike to focus on externals. On the male side of the ledger, we used to emphasize things like strength of character, moral standing, loyalty, honesty/straight-forwardness, bravery and so on as the key elements of what made a male a man, rather than a boy. Today, we have a male culture that has rampaged off the reservation, and is emphasizing externalized behaviors rather than internalized character -- the increased emphasis on male physical beauty is also noticeable, the caricature of the macho tough guy, the pick-up artist, and so on -- all emphasizing certain external behaviors, but de-emphasizing the kinds of inner strength of character that used to characterize what men were, ideally at least, about.
So as I see it, while that cultural trend impacts men and women differently, nevertheless it does cut across the sexes, and is a negative thing for men and women alike.
On virginity, I think, to me at least, the broader issue is that for young men and young women alike, sexuality is becoming trivial. It was probably a pre-Christian obsession for men to be so concerned about female pre-marital chastity -- probably due to the risk of raising another man's child, either shortly after marriage, or even later on. And in that sense, the emphasis on female virginity, rather than male virginity, was lopsided. Perhaps we don't need to resurrect that older model, but at the same time find a way to emphasize to younger people that pre-marital chastity is of tremendous benefit to them in the longer run in terms of their long-term relationship and marriage. The problem with what is happening now is that sex is becoming so commonplace among the young that it has become trivial -- the young are saturated with sexuality the way no other generation has been, between the hook-up culture, on the one hand, and the ubiquity of pornography, on the other. This can have both a numbing effect (sex becomes less interesting and special) as well as lead to a division between sex and emotional bonding -- as is natural for men and women alike, but is often denied by the contemporary culture. In no way is this good for the people involved.
Ame,
One of these days I am going to take you up on that offer :)
" what is often said and preached is one thing ... but what is often practiced is another."
Sadly true.
Hi Kathy,
I do need a holiday but it does not look like I will have one other than perhaps visiting some friends for a long weekend. I usually go to the beach in May every year but will not be going this year and I will miss it :( Though, my fair skin will not miss the inevitable sunburn and peeling that follows! (not to mention the looks of disapproval from my doc when she sees it) :)
Nova,
Thanks. I agree that men are also judged by externals in ways that are counterproductive and damaging, and it appears to only be getting worse for both men and women.
More and more, while I agree that saving sex for marriage is beneficial to individuals and to society (What God asks of us usually is), I wonder if that is the wrong tack to take. In some way isn't the argument that it is in the best interest of individuals and society essentially saying that we should do what we think is in our best interest rather that arguing that it is the right thing to do because it is what God asks of us?
I hope that made sense.
The value of virginity is not in imputed virtue but in provable cleanliness.
A woman who maintains her virginity has assurance of being free of venerial disease and blessing her husband with that same assurance. She further has greater choice available to her in mates since she will not be presured to settle pre-maturely through unintended pregnancy or by placing the burden of children onto a man who is equally unpreparred. It is also an embarassment for a man to marry a woman is is "known" by all his friends. Most rational men would avoid such a woman for marriage.
A man will certainly wonder if he is really the father of a child conceived before the wedding. The Virgin has a little more credibility in that regard.
I is the natural order of things for girls to grow up and have sex with men. A license from the state should never be a cause for distinguishing between sin and virtue. Adultery (sex with someone else's spouse) is sin because it defrauds that spouse what is lawfully theirs and permits children of uncertain parentage. Both very harmful things in the context of marriage and society.
"In some way isn't the argument that it is in the best interest of individuals and society essentially saying that we should do what we think is in our best interest rather that arguing that it is the right thing to do because it is what God asks of us?"
Learner --
I get what you mean.
Certainly for people who have a faith tradition, that's the best approach. And ultimately the most important approach for others as well -- because as you point out, if our starting point is personal cost/benefits, it leads to thinking about things differently.
Hi Roci,
"The value of virginity is not in imputed virtue but in provable cleanliness."
Value to whom?
If it is their spouse or prospective spouse* why is it that virginity is not more valued in men then? Women are at far greater risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease from a man than vice versa, and the negative effects of STDs are also greater on the reproductive health of women as well as their overall health (ie certain types of cancers caused by STDs). I do understand the idea with regard to paternity.
"She further has greater choice available to her in mates since she will not be presured to settle pre-maturely through unintended pregnancy or by placing the burden of children onto a man who is equally unpreparred."
While this is true at face value when it comes to pregnancy, it has been the experience of many women (both today and even for women of my advanced age) that a desire to wait for marriage for sex is more limiting than expanding of her choice of mates. Whether this is true for men or not as well, I could not say.
"A license from the state should never be a cause for distinguishing between sin and virtue."
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by this. Are you objecting to the state's role in marriage? If not could you elaborate?
* Perhaps part of the problem is that people are more concerned about how other people value their behavioral choices rather than how God values them? Perhaps someone who waits for marriage to have sex in order to submit themselves to God is more "trustworthy" than someone who waits for marriage in order to be more desirable to their partner? (Of course one can do so for both reasons at the same time, I'm just wondering if the emphasis is in the wrong place, if that makes sense).
Nova,
"I get what you mean."
Whew! Good, I feel like I am next to incomprehensible lately.
Roci wrote:
"The value of virginity is not in imputed virtue but in provable cleanliness."
I'd like to extend what Roci said here. In addition to implied virtue in a woman's virginity, there is an implied state of being STD-free (barring diseases gained from blood transfusions and the like) and an empirically observable lower risk of downstream divorce.
So one's value from virginity stems from which benefit you value most.
As for a virginal woman of advanced age, or a virginal man older than say 22 or so, I think that the virginity is devalued not so much for the sake of a lower value on virginity but for the psychological pathologies that are assumed to exist in such a person, who for whatever reason doesn't have a "normal" sexual history.
I guess it's kinda like the relative preference that women have for divorced men versus single never married guys, when they are past a certain age. At least in the former group, a woman knows that at least he is willing to marry and at least had enough social skill to attract the attention of another woman in the first place. The never married guy is more of a blank slate and a woman would be less sure of what she is signing up for.
So one's value from virginity stems from which benefit you value most.
There may be other benefits as well, but none so universally acknowledged as these obvious ones.
What some see as "innocence" others deride as "inexperience".
I don't think there is any real danger of "wearing it out".
In times past, the reputation of the woman was an important factor in attracting a mate of equally good standing. Notorious sex was one way to lose a good reputation.
I personally believe the prevalence of abortion is related to the preservation of reputations and the appearance of chastity. A large belly is pretty hard to hide. Most women in that condition do not want to admit how they got that way, even though biologically, we all know. This is also a significant source of false rape claims (I believe). A woman who will kill her offspring to preserve her reputation will certainly lie to accomplish the same purpose.
EW,
"In addition to implied virtue in a woman's virginity"
Okay, I'm confused! I thought Roci said the value of virginity was not imputed virtue, which I would understand to mean to be quite different if not the opposite of value coming from "implied virtue". Dang, I miss my mind. Anyway I think perhaps we were getting at the same thing- that a woman who submits to God in obedience with regard to premarital sex is more likely to have a successful marriage because of her submission to God.
What a world we live in that virtue is equated with psychological pathology...even more unfortunate is that this view is prevalent in the church as well.
"I guess it's kinda like the relative preference that women have for divorced men versus single never married guys, when they are past a certain age."
There is? I would say this is not so among my single girlfriends, although they are believers so perhaps that is not what you mean.
Roci said "Most women in that condition do not want to admit how they got that way, even though biologically, we all know."
One of my students told me that one of the reasons she was considering an abortion was because she did not want her classmates to know. I asked her if her classmates knew she was having sex with her boyfriend and she said "of course". When I pointed out the pregnancy was a natural outcome of sex she could not see the incongruency there.
I still don't think I quite understood your previous comment, if you have a moment could you clarify?
Happy to help. Please state your question so I know what you want to know.
Roci,
The questions were in my comment of May 18 at 4:17pm (so they may make more sense in context), but essentially they were:
"The value of virginity is not in imputed virtue but in provable cleanliness."
Value to whom?
"A license from the state should never be a cause for distinguishing between sin and virtue."
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by this. Are you objecting to the state's role in marriage? If not could you elaborate?
Part 1: The relative value of virginity.
This is a complex idea that I can probably not cover well here. Suffice it to say that American society is not homogeneous on this or any other issue. There are a lot of reasons why women (or even men) might maintain virginity. I suspect the strongest of them is "inertia". Once you have given up virginity, simple abstinence is not a sufficient replacement condition (though it is exactly the same behavior). Value and virtue are relative concepts which will differ in degree with each person. I cannot describe all of the possible conditions and permutations that would make this a meaningful discussion. Thus, some people will value virginity because they value virtue, but for others, virginity is not associated with virtue at all, yet both groups can find value in the cleanliness argument. In many ways, this is like the argument for buying a new tractor instead of a used one. The used one may be a better value because it is broken in and the manufacturer's defects have been discovered and corrected, but most people still would rather have a new one and discover the defects on their own.
"A license from the state should never be a cause for distinguishing between sin and virtue."
Break this down. The bahavior is heterosexual sex between consenting adults who are not otherwise promised to another.
Why would sex within marriage be wholsome and endorsed by God, while sex without marriage be sin? The bahavior is the same. To suggest otherwise is to imply that the gates of Heaven are guarded by legions of accountants and lawyers, checking your documentation before being admited.
The difference between the two is only a registration and tax reciept. What I know of the Bible and historic Christianity, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does not judge us based on our ability to comply with the laws of men in filing our taxes on time or using the right fork at dinner. Such things are not sin or disobedience to Him. Heterosexual sex is the natural course of humanity and when not otherwise prohibited, is not sinful. No other activity is taught to be sinful befor a certain date and celebrated afterwards.
It is again the value to society and the church's role in uplifting society that teach heterosexual marriage as the proper place to express sexual behavior.
It is unarguable that many of the risks associated with sexual activity are mitigated by marriage. And by marriage, I mean traditional marriage (including polygamy) where children produced have a secure and recognized paternity and support structure.
In sum: You cannot have the exact same activity be both sin and sacred in the same religion. I acknowledge that the Christian church universally teaches otherwise, but I disagree with their conclusion on this and do not see anything to support their position.
Roci,
It seems to me that two diffferent issues are getting muddied together, one being the state's role in marriage (as in the discussion taking place over at EW's)and the other being whether sex prior to marriage is sin. I have no argument with anyone who thinks the state should have no role in marriage, or that marriage is more than a legal contract governed by the state because it is first and primarily a covenant before God.
As to whether or not sex prior to marriage is sin or not, you said: "In sum: You cannot have the exact same activity be both sin and sacred in the same religion. I acknowledge that the Christian church universally teaches otherwise, but I disagree with their conclusion on this and do not see anything to support their position."
I guess the support for this position depends on whether or not you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God or not. In some ways it is a bit of a circular argument to say that adultery is sin, but sex prior to marriage is not sin, because according to God's law if a man and woman who is not promised (meaning an arrangement that was binding and beyond modern engagement) to another have sex prior to marriage, then the woman will become the man's wife. If she is promised to another then they are both punished as adulterers (stoned)if she was willing, or he is punished if it is provable rape. (Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:23-29)
So, under God's law when a man has sex with an unmarried woman it is either adultery and to be punished as such (if she was "promised" to nother man), or rape and the man is punished, or (if she is not promised to another)it means that the man and woman are to be husband and wife. So there really is no sex without marriage under God's law.
"You cannot have the exact same activity be both sin and sacred in the same religion"
I disagree. Many actions are judged by God in the Bible to be sin or not sin based on their context. For example, eating when you have a need for food and gluttony, when you eat beyond what is needed, or killing in self defense and murder.
So sex with a woman who is not promised is not adultery? My point is supported. Nor is marriage without a marriage lisence from the state marriage.
I acknowledge the roots of marriage, but the reality of it in the USA today is far removed. The institution of marriage is entirely secular. The church wedding is in addition to the state action. The state action is neccessary and sufficient, the church action is not. In divorce, again, state action is neccessary and sufficient, church action is not.
Arguments on legal points from the old testiment do not carry much weight when presented by people who are not following ALL of the law (or at least attempting to). If you are alive today, it is not possible for you to obey the law.
Where is the dividing line between gluttony and eating? Is it a fixed number of calories per day or are people with tape worms allowed to eat more? If I exercise more, is black forest cake still a sin? Wouldn't all deserts be sinful since they are not needed to survive? Where would you even get the idea that EATING is a sin?
My meager understanding of the Bible indicates that the words for killing and murdering are different words, and are as distinct from each other in meaning as "table" is from "chair". One is sin, the other is not. Context is not relevent. But not being a Bible scholar, I would prefer to not argue Greek/Hebrew lexicons.
I'm sorry Roci, I am thoroughly confused about what your point is. Your point was that sex prior to marriage is not adultery? Okay, I agree with that, marriage is a necessary condition of adultery. My point was that under OT law anyone who has sex before marriage is then in God's eyes married to the person they had sex with. So, in a sense sex = marriage. So the first time a woman has sex with a man in God's eyes he is to be her husband and she is his wife. So, if either he or she then go on to have sex with another they are committing adultery in God's eyes because those two had already become one flesh.
Are you saying that adultery is the only way to sin sexually? or what exactly are you saying?
As for marriage not being marriage without a liscense from the state I would ask according to whom, again. Marriage was marriage in God's eyes before the state ever became involved.
"Arguments on legal points from the old testiment do not carry much weight when presented by people who are not following ALL of the law (or at least attempting to). If you are alive today, it is not possible for you to obey the law."
No one (except Christ)is able to follow all of the law Roci, regardless of when in history they lived. Any arguments based on OT law are not about the authority of the person saying them (me) they are about the authority of the law giver, God. Whether or not I or you can keep the law is completely irrelevant to whether or not breaking God's law is sin. God is the one who gets to say what is sin and what is not. All I can go by is what He says.
"Where is the dividing line between gluttony and eating? Is it a fixed number of calories per day or are people with tape worms allowed to eat more? If I exercise more, is black forest cake still a sin? Wouldn't all deserts be sinful since they are not needed to survive? Where would you even get the idea that EATING is a sin?"
LOL Roci! my example was saying that eating was not a sin but rather than gluttony was :) The same action, placing food in your mouth can be sin in one circumscance and not sin in another. I have no fixed line to define for everyone where the line between eating and gluttiny are because God gives no fixed line. God does however give a line when it comes to sex (being contained in my last comment and other places in the scripture).
As for murder and killing being different words, so are fornication and sex within the context of marriage.
PS:
Roci previously in this thread said: "Why would sex within marriage be wholsome and endorsed by God, while sex without marriage be sin? The bahavior is the same. To suggest otherwise is to imply that the gates of Heaven are guarded by legions of accountants and lawyers, checking your documentation before being admited."
After thinking on this a bit longer I wonder if perhaps should have been more straightforward in addressing this. If our admission to heaven is on the basis of what we have done here on Earth we are all screwed. All of us, every last one of us is a sinner, period. None of us have behaved in a manner worthy of heaven, not one. The only way, the only "documentation" that is going to be checked, is whether or not our names are in the book of life because we have confessed our sinful state and accepted the salvation available to us through Jesus' substitutionary death. Does this mean we can do whatever we please? No, God's mercy and kindness to us when we do not deserve it should drive us toward obedience to Him.
So, whether sex before marriage is sin or not has no bearing on admission to heaven. It has no bearing because if so it is one more sin we have committed among many and if not there are plenty of other things we have done that are sin.
"So, whether sex before marriage is sin or not has no bearing on admission to heaven"
It does if a person continually fornicates outside of marriage, contrary to God's law, L.
St Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians said:
Be not deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminates [i. e. those given to self-abuse] nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor cheats, no drunkards, no railers, no robbers shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but ye have washed yourselves clean, but ye have been hallowed, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."
We are, as you say L, all sinners. Only the unrepentant sinner will go to hell.
If we are truly sorry for our sins and make an effort to avoid sin then we face a merciful and loving God.
If, on the other hand we lead a debauched lifestyle ignoring his commandments, then we can expect to face an angry and just God.
Yes, Jesus died on the cross for us all, but not all will enter the kingdom of heaven.
I've missed a lot of the conversation here, sorry!
"a woman who submits to God in obedience with regard to premarital sex is more likely to have a successful marriage because of her submission to God."
Yes, at least that's what I was saying was one of the observable benefits of remaining virginal until marriage.
I thought that Roci was saying the same thing as well...if not, so sorry if I was putting words in your mouth Roci.
""I guess it's kinda like the relative preference that women have for divorced men versus single never married guys, when they are past a certain age.""
The only authority I can appeal to this is hearsay...I recall reading back during my post-divorce single-and-searching days that, given the preference between a divorced upper-30-something guy and a single upper-30-something guy, the divorced dude has the edge with women looking for a mate.
Particularly when the years heap on...the single never married virginal dudes single-never-married-virginal status becomes more and more suspect in the eyes of the world and most of the Church.
Changing subjects to the question of sex outside of marriage:
"So the first time a woman has sex with a man in God's eyes he is to be her husband and she is his wife."
To my read of Scripture, pre-marital sexuality does not bind a man to a woman in marriage. Thus flitting from partner to partner is not adultery but fornication. I reject the notion that simply having sexual congress with a person makes one married to them for all time.
Please feel free to challenge me on this if you think it is incorrect. Here's a post I did on parsing out the marrieds from the simply fornicating, hopefully that will illuminate where I'm coming from on the issue.
Moving on to the question of marriage, I'm having trouble following the thread. So let me attempt to disambiguate the terms a little: I'll call biblical marriage "marriage", and state marriage I'll term "civil unions", or "CU".
One can be married in the eyes of God and the community without the certificate of CU on the wall. Conversely, one may be in possession of the CU and not be married in the eyes of God and the community.
The two concepts are completely different in my book.
"The only authority I can appeal to this is hearsay...I recall reading back during my post-divorce single-and-searching days that, given the preference between a divorced upper-30-something guy and a single upper-30-something guy, the divorced dude has the edge with women looking for a mate."
Er, "single" in "single upper-30-something" should read "virginal"
Hi Kathy :)
The point I was trying to make was that with regard to who enters heaven and who does not, whether or not one particular activity is sin or not doesn't matter because we are all sinful (I don't mean to say that whether or not an activity is sinful does not matter- it matters because God says it does, not because the engagement in one activity or another is what will secure or deny salvation). If premarital sex was not sin (I believe it is) it is not as though there would be more or less people admitted to heaven. I was trying to get at the point that we are not admitted to heaven by what we do or do not do, we are admitted to heaven by what Christ did.
-Romans 11:5-6 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
-Ephesians 2: 8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
I agree that premarital sex/fornication is sin and that anyone who continues in such a sin has cause to wonder if they are "a new creation".
Hi EW
Perhaps the difference is I am thinking of the preferences of women who are 30+ single, never married virgins themselves. Perhaps they understand better that not engaging in sex or not having been previously married and divorced does not mean there is something wrong with you.
I'm with you on the Biblical marriage vs civil union business.
"To my read of Scripture, pre-marital sexuality does not bind a man to a woman in marriage. Thus flitting from partner to partner is not adultery but fornication. I reject the notion that simply having sexual congress with a person makes one married to them for all time."
I remember reading that post about Bristol and Levi last year. To be honest I am not certain what I think about this issue and perhaps it is a matter of semantics. Does "marriage" occur during the sexual act? I'm not sure, but it kinda sounds like it if you read about Isaac and Rebekah. Even so, if it is not the joining of the two into one flesh that "marries" the man and woman, in both Deut 22 and Lev 22 God commands that if a man has sex with an unbetrothed virgin that he MUST marry her. If he does not marry her and goes on to have sex with another he is having sex with someone other than the woman God commanded that he must marry. It may not be adultery by strict definition but I don't understand how the functional impact is any different.
So, I guess what I would say in response is to ask what you would say about the following:
- What about Isaac and Rebekah? It appears that their marriage did occur when he "took" her.
-What about Deut 22 and Lev 22 that says if a man sleeps with a virgin he must marry her?
RE: heavenly admission standards. I agree that what your sins are is not relevent. I was using the "getting into heaven" as a literary proxy (metaphore) for sin/virtue determination.
To place this in chatecism language:
What is sin but disobedience to God?
How do we know what God forbids, what He demands, and how he feels about other things? From that you determine the standards for what is sin and what is simply unprofitable behavior.
While the Bible is accepted as the standard among most Christian denominations, that same Bible is almost universally ignored by those same Christians on inconvenient issues. And other denominations waterboard the Bible into submission on issues where God has no dog in the fight.
I suspect the general trend in this is because we use today an imprecise language even within the Church, when a precise language is available, if you are willing to work hard to learn it. I am not. Add to that a personal or profit motive to see what you wnat in scripture to support your position and confusion abounds.
Adultery is sin. (certainly in the top ten)
Fornication is not.
Sex with boyfrield = not sin
Sex with same man after you marry him = not sin
Sex with another man AFTER you marry husband = sin.
It is a matter of definitions and the definitions are critical to the meanings. If you don't know what the words mean, of if the words are subject to arbitrary interpretation (like the difference between healthy eating and gluttony) then you have no possibility of pleasing God through a virtuous life, other than accidently. Good luck with that. While pleasing God will not get you into Heaven, it is supposed to be the object motivation of the Christian lifestyle.
Another word with a soon to be arbitrary meaning is "marriage". The difference between fornication and healthy lawful marital bliss is the arbitrary standard of a paper, registered with the county, after the payment of a tax, followed by a ceremony with no fixed content. The church marriage is very similar in that it can have or neglect ANYTHING as part of the ceremony.
If the only God-recognized element of marriage is sex, then polygamy is not only moral but intended as part of God's plan for humanity. As a man can Add to his collection simply by having unrestricted sex and never seeing her again. But a woman, once "married" in such a fashion is compelled to save herself for her husband (see adultery).
Since I believe (act of faith) that God is rational, then I also believe that when He appears to give irrational rules,the irrationality arises from our misunderstanding.
Does that make this clear?
Roci,
Yes, it is clear. I disagree heartily, but it is clear.
There are numerous scriptures that call fornication (pornea) sin, and that is the standard that I have to go by. If you believe that fornication is not sin then I must assume you believe that in God's eyes it is not sin for any unmarried man or woman can have sex with as many unmarried partners as they wish? If you can fornicate with one person then why not with 100?
If I use your logic and I have sex with my boyfriend Joe and it is not sin, how can it be sin if after I marry Pete, I have sex with Joe? It is the same action, how can it not be sin before marriage but be sin after? It is sex between the same two people afterall, if as you say,
you cannot have the exact same activity be both sin and sacred in the same religion, then why is it sin after marriage but not before?
To me, when taken in the light of scripture as a whole, this is irrational. It is far more rational and congruent with the whole of scripture for sex to be meant to be between a husband and wife only.
I believe God is rational too, but that doesn not mean that I am the one to determine when His word is rational or not. Human beings are not qualified to judge the rationality of God. His thoughts are above our thoughts and His ways above our ways. If God decrees it, it is by definition truth and thus rational. We may come to a point where God;s ways are rational to us, but them not being rational to us does not make them irrational, it just means we do not have the mind of God.
I have no dog in the polygamy fight and don't wish to open up that can of worms here.
"Adultery is sin. (certainly in the top ten)
Fornication is not."
I don't agree, Roci.
Fornication like adultery, is a sin.It is noted as such in the new testament.
HEBREWS 13:4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Getting away from the religious aspect, a little here, I cannot see any positives in fornication, only negatives.
eg, Aids, and other sexually transmitted diseases, illegitimate children, breakdown of the family and society in general, and lack of respect.
Matthew 7:
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Getting away from the religious aspect, a little here, I cannot see any positives in fornication, only negatives.Then you aren't doing it right. The obvious risks you cite can easily be mititaged. Nor is marriage proof against those same harms. Otherwise, the positives in fornication are exactly the same positives in marital sex.
Yes, God will judge the fornicators and adulterers... and everyone else. You cannot escape judgement.
"Yes, God will judge the fornicators and adulterers... and everyone else. You cannot escape judgement."
Very true. Thank God that is not the end of the story!
Romans 7:21-25
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Post a Comment