Is there scriptual support against premarital sex? I dont think so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Although clearly given the conversion of the Khazars (and large numbers of Ashkenazim) this can't have been rigidly adhered to.


From what I recall of early Christian history, the split occurred when gentile converts to what was then still a sect of Judaism tried to control synagogues in various areas- or at least that's what I seem to recall from reading Karen Armstrong's excellent 'A History of God'.


She had a very good piece in yesterday's Guardian about the rise of casual anti-semitism in modern politics and society.

Conversion was, (at least according to the "official" viewpoint) always initiated by the would be convert - its pretty clear consensus viewpoint that proselytizing is unacceptable. during the mishnaic era there was debate about whether it was even ok to accept converts - there were halachik issues, but also a concern about informers and the like. The consensus was to accept, but only after initial discouragement. There is still a notion that gentiles who are not prospective converts are not supposed to learn torah, but I dont think that was held universally even premodern times.

Havent read KA. I will look for the Guardian article.

[self biased]

Originally posted by MRT144


abandon ship, abandon ship!

he speaks da troof!


but in all sincerity, have her make the decision. just lay it out on the table, and give her some time to think about it. either she wants to be with you (and everything that entails), or she doesn't. i can understand how she might feel conflicting emotions about it, but there's only two people she has to reconcile her actions to: herself and god. damn what anyone else might think. it might be based on a desire to be "well liked" by her community, or thought of in a certain light.

however, i think you'd be better off with someone a little less naive. though i'd refrain from trolling the churches for these repressed individuals, as the same problem might arise.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberShy
If you have sex you're maried for God.
Mariage starts with either sexual intercourse or a promise you make to each other.
Isaac sees his future wife coming, he takes her into his tent and 'takes' her to his housewife.
That's how things went in those days.

So, don't feel guilty if you had sex with someone you didn't marry. Just feel maried.
And when you skip to the next gal, you've just commited adultery.

I don't know why christians put that much importance to subjects like pre-marital sex. There's one focus we christians should have: Jesus died for our sins. Don't focus on the sins, focus on Jesus.

I'm sorry for all those wrong focusses christians make.

I think this is essentially correct. Fornication in the bible was clearly referring to being with harlots. Sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman was tantamount to being married. Sex between a married man or woman and someone else other than a prostitute was adultery. Sex with prostitutes was not considered to be adultery.

Which brings us to the subject of Rodrigo Borgia. He had a common law wife with whom he had four children. Still, he became pope.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by self biased


he speaks da troof!


but in all sincerity, have her make the decision. just lay it out on the table, and give her some time to think about it. either she wants to be with you (and everything that entails), or she doesn't. i can understand how she might feel conflicting emotions about it, but there's only two people she has to reconcile her actions to: herself and god. damn what anyone else might think. it might be based on a desire to be "well liked" by her community, or thought of in a certain light.

however, i think you'd be better off with someone a little less naive. though i'd refrain from trolling the churches for these repressed individuals, as the same problem might arise.

sex shouldnt be a thing you fight over. you guys either mutually want to do it, or you dont. it should never be a thing of coercion or someone sacrificing their viewpoint. unless youre roleplaying that

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by self biased





but in all sincerity, have her make the decision. just lay it out on the table, and give her some time to think about it. either she wants to be with you (and everything that entails), or she doesn't. i can understand how she might feel conflicting emotions about it, but there's only two people she has to reconcile her actions to: herself and god. damn what anyone else might think. it might be based on a desire to be "well liked" by her community, or thought of in a certain light.

I intend to do this. She has many qualities other than being a sex object. If she feels sex no longer has a place in our relationship, I will respect her wishes, continue to be friends with her, greatly reduce the amount of time I spend with her, and greatly increase the amount of time I spend with other chicks who are putting out for me.... Then she will begin to sense my apathy and panic and start putting out for me again.

[Kuciwalker]

nm

[Gibsie]

Show her the wonders of technicalvirgin.com
Then you might not get full sex, but you'll still get everything else, and she can feel good about herself. Caution: she has to be somewhat of a ****** to fall for this. And having sex with retards is only sometimes fun.

[Alexander's Horse]

a thread for the one dimensional

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


In any case, you proceed at your own risk, Monsieur Valmont, and i dont think you need our help.

BTW, HAVE you read Liasons Dangereuses?

No, I have not read that book, but I saw the movie. I can live with whatever path this relationship takes. I would, however, like to see if anyone can prove to me that there is scriptural support against premarital sex. I think I have refuted this idea successfully within this thread..

[RGBVideo]

Churches are a goldmine of sexually repressed females. If you can find one who is not overly zealous, you can tap into those repressed feelings and unleash a torrent of passion. This is my second time at the well at this particular church...

Get your sick advice from somewhere else, pervert.

[Ben Kenobi]

How do you make the connection between 'prostitute' and 'anyone'? Did you read the bit in the original post about how the translation of I Cor 6:9 might confuse these two things?

Where is this passage located?

This is a different passage, 1 Cor 6:16. Paul is clearly referring to Christ when Christ talks about the ideal of marriage in divorce.

Here's why I say that:

This is Christ in Matthew: 19:4-6

“Haven't you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

And Paul, in 1 Cor 6:16

Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”

Oh, and Molly, I most assuredly do not make these things up.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by VJ

Get your sick advice from somewhere else, pervert.

Stop acting like a girl.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This is a different passage, 1 Cor 6:16. Paul is clearly referring to Christ when Christ talks about the ideal of marriage in divorce.

Here's why I say that:

This is Christ in Matthew: 19:4-6

“Haven't you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

And Paul, in 1 Cor 6:16

Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”

Oh, and Molly, I most assuredly do not make these things up.

Without addressing the textual point, it would seem to me that Ben is right, Paul must be referring to the quote from Matthew, NOT to the original text in Genesis/berei****. Jewish texts of only slightly more recent date (like the Mishna) always say "it is written" when referring to the Torah (in the narrow sense of the 5 books of Moses), and "it is said" when referring to Prophets. Did Saul/Paul follow this distinction in his other writings?

re: the text
'"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife," Genesis 2:24 teaches, "and they shall become one flesh." The sages of the Talmud and Midrash explicate the phrase "one flesh" as teaching that the ultimate purpose of human sexuality is the continued viability of creation. In Rashi's words, "The child is formed through the two of them and there, their flesh becomes one." The Torah identifies marriage, the sanctified union of man and woman, as the best means to achieve God's cosmic purpose. The future of humanity is assured only by the creation of progeny.'

Rabbi Gerson Gewirtz

IE the uniting of the flesh is that unification of the flesh us parents witness every day, the creation of a child who partakes of the physical existence of BOTH parents. This cant really be applied to a casual encounter, despite Saul/Paul. In fact it hardly argues for the biblical impossibility of divorce, which is of course allowed by Torah. Christians claim this as a concession to the weakwilled of that generation - but then the church has always needed to create annulments to serve the same purpose - and given them even where children, the one flesh, exist.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Paul must be referring to the quote from Matthew, NOT to the original text in Genesis/berei****.

That would be quite a trick, since Matthew was most likely written after Paul was dead.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Oh, and Molly, I most assuredly do not make these things up.

Given that we haven't heard much about your expertise in either Old Testament Hebrew or New Testament Greek or indeed time travelling, then you're relying on your interpretations of someone else's translation and interpretation of a text written in and for a particular historical context thousands of years ago.


In other words, it could have said whatever the politico-religious inclinations of the translator wanted it to say, especially given the difference between language as poetics/revelation and language as legal manual/rational description.


Martin Luther's 'translation' of the Bible said what he wanted it so say, for instance. So sorry, your 'version' is no more accurate or true than any number of others.