Fornication and Remarriage

[Joe Green]

1 Corinthians 7:2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Fornication-A single person,never married, having someone's Biblical (covenant) companion.

It seems to be slowly developing in the minds of the people that when a man who has no living wife marries a woman with a husband that that man will be free to divorce this woman and be free to marry another. The man is guilty of fornication and may marry another but the woman is bound to her first companion. -Church of Prophecy

 

[Moral Orel]

1 Corinthians 7:2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Fornication-A single person having someone's Biblical (covenant) companion.

It seems to be slowly developing in the minds of the people that when a man who has no living wife marries a woman with a husband that that man will be free to divorce this woman and be free to marry another. The man is guilty of fornication and may marry another but the woman is bound to her first companion. -Church of Prophecy

It would be best to start with an accurate translation. The Bible doesn't have a special word for "fornication". Wherever you see that word in whichever translation you're using, they actually used the word for "sexual immorality" which is a whole host of things. Of course, sex before marriage isn't really defined anywhere I can see in the Bible as sexually immoral without a lot of interpreting going on, like calling "lust" premarital sex.

Second, your example isn't fornication, it's adultery. A man is having relations with a married woman. That is quite explicitly defined as adultery.

That being said, welcome to the boards!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It would be best to start with an accurate translation. The Bible doesn't have a special word for "fornication". Wherever you see that word in whichever translation you're using, they actually used the word for "sexual immorality" which is a whole host of things. Of course, sex before marriage isn't really defined anywhere I can see in the Bible as sexually immoral without a lot of interpreting going on, like calling "lust" premarital sex.

Second, your example isn't fornication, it's adultery. A man is having relations with a married woman. That is quite explicitly defined as adultery.

That being said, welcome to the boards!

Hi Nik,

It's been a while! (I guess it's time to reconnect ... )

In the above response you made to the OP, it seems to me that, although you're correct that specific biblical words as they were originally penned were/are a bit more hazy than what the typical English translation lets on, in the case of Paul's reference to "sexual immorality," what else could the context of his statements mean, other than what we would term today as "fornication"?

Any (academic) ideas here on the matter?

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

1 Corinthians 7:2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Fornication-A single person having someone's Biblical (covenant) companion.

It seems to be slowly developing in the minds of the people that when a man who has no living wife marries a woman with a husband that that man will be free to divorce this woman and be free to marry another. The man is guilty of fornication and may marry another but the woman is bound to her first companion. -Church of Prophecy

Joe,

This is an interesting (and relevant) topic, but you're particular angle on it probably belongs in the "Christian philosophy/Christian ethics" section rather than in the general Philosophy/Ethics & Morality section.

Just sayin'

2PhiloVoid

 

[Dave-W]

-Church of Prophecy

? ? ? ?

What is that?

 

[Moral Orel]

Hi Nik,

It's been a while! (I guess it's time to reconnect ... )

Yep, long time no see!

In the above response you made to the OP, it seems to me that, although you're correct that specific biblical words as they were originally penned were/are a bit more hazy than what the typical English translation lets on, in the case of Paul's reference to "sexual immorality," what else could the context of his statements mean, other than what we would term today as "fornication"?

In my opinion, Paul's quote there is the only one that looks like it might be in reference to fornication. Every other time I can remember, it seems like the speaker would mean it in the general sense and not some specific one sin. So it begs the question, why would Paul be the first one in the whole Bible to point that out as a sin? I'm no expert on Greek, but, was there no better word to use if he wanted to specifically pin down one sin? Like, "If you can't remain celibate, then get married".

But he could have very well meant it in a general sense as well. If you aren't married, and you've got a hankerin', it may drive you to commit any number of the sins listed in Leviticus described as "sexually immoral". Getting married gives you the one guaranteed safe outlet for that hankerin', i.e. someone who isn't a relative or married to someone else or of the same sex or etc., but that still doesn't mean anything like "all sex before marriage is sin".

To top it all off, I don't like the reason Paul says people ought not get married in the first place, if they can avoid it:

This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none" -- 1 Corinthians 7:29​

Does the "appointed time" mean something other than the "end times"? Because it sure sounds like he's saying Jesus is coming back real soon. And with Jesus' return so close, people need to concentrate on getting right with God instead of concentrating on keeping a spouse happy. Paul was actually against marriage in general in that chapter. Does anyone pay any attention to that any more?

I'll add though, that I don't think all sex before marriage is okay (according to the Bible anyways). What Jesus said about lust pretty much says casual sex is a no no. But people seem to think that any sex before marriage is automatically lust, and somehow that people can't get married for lust.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey Nicholas,

In my opinion, Paul's quote there is the only one that looks like it might be in reference to fornication. Every other time I can remember, it seems like the speaker would mean it in the general sense and not some specific one sin.

Really? I’m looking at a list of usages of the term πορνείας (porneias) in the New Testament, and I don’t think I’m seeing what you’re seeing; it looks to me like ‘porneias’ was some kind of general term that was applied to nearly any kind of sex outside of the marriage relationship. Maybe back then, they didn’t feel that a wide swath of terms was needed to describe an illicit sex act—Jews knew what they deemed to be sin, despite what sect they belonged to, and they likely adhered to a somewhat singular sex ethic. More than likely, there wasn’t much up for discussion from a Jewish perspective. Sexual sin was … sin. Nowadays, especially with our English language, we’re very good and slicing and dicing our terms to try to get at some more or less precise meaning. And now we try to slice and dice old Greek terms and thought forms with our modern interpretations, in what seems to me to be a fairly anachronistic fashion, in order to get at some kind of exact meaning—(maybe to see if we can find some kind of loophole… I mean….who doesn’t’ want to have sex these days, in the way and fashion that we want to? )

So it begs the question, why would Paul be the first one in the whole Bible to point that out as a sin? I'm no expert on Greek, but, was there no better word to use if he wanted to specifically pin down one sin? Like, "If you can't remain celibate, then get married".

Well, I’m no expert in Koine Greek either, but that shouldn’t stop us since we've got access to info from those who are experts.

In my estimation, I’d say that there wasn’t much for Paul to say. From the ancient Jewish perspective of Paul’s time, what more was there to say about any kind of sex outside the marriage between a man and a woman? However, respective of his theological understanding, and from the context of what Paul wrote to the Corinthians, I don’t think he really expected most people to be celibate, and I have a feeling that the original 1st commandment was fixed quite firmly in the back of his mind (i.e. “Be fruitful and multiply…”).

But he could have very well meant it in a general sense as well. If you aren't married, and you've got a hankerin', it may drive you to commit any number of the sins listed in Leviticus described as "sexually immoral". Getting married gives you the one guaranteed safe outlet for that hankerin', i.e. someone who isn't a relative or married to someone else or of the same sex or etc., but that still doesn't mean anything like "all sex before marriage is sin".

Well, you’re going to have a difficult time in demonstrating that good, upstanding Jews of Paul's times were just having a whole lot of that kind of thing before marriage.

To top it all off, I don't like the reason Paul says people ought not get married in the first place, if they can avoid it:

This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none" -- 1 Corinthians 7:29

I don’t think that “liking” what Paul says has as much to do with the level of social cogency of his statements as does our “understanding” of why Paul said what he said. Additionally, I think we really have to incline ourselves to understand what he meant when he wrote,

ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος (i.e. the time is shortened, or being “wrapped up.”)

Does the "appointed time" mean something other than the "end times"? Because it sure sounds like he's saying Jesus is coming back real soon. And with Jesus' return so close, people need to concentrate on getting right with God instead of concentrating on keeping a spouse happy. Paul was actually against marriage in general in that chapter. Does anyone pay any attention to that any more?

No, I’d have to disagree somewhat with you there. I think we need to take what Paul says here in a fuller context with other eschatological comments he makes throughout the same letter to the Corinthians. It seems that when he wrote this letter, he was under the impression that Jesus’ ‘revelation’ (whatever that fully means) would take place within the lifetime of his own generation. So, yeah…Paul was concerned that people would get too ensconced in social activities that, even though they were normal things of life, like marriage and family, and these same people could end up having to face some unexpected perils or heartaches along the way due to what he thought was impending eschatology; members of a family might be martyred or imprisoned. He implies as much.

I'll add though, that I don't think all sex before marriage is okay (according to the Bible anyways). What Jesus said about lust pretty much says casual sex is a no no. But people seem to think that any sex before marriage is automatically lust, and somehow that people can't get married for lust.

This is a whole other discussion. But, I’ll just say for now that in some small way, I agree; sex before marriage doesn’t necessarily equate to lust. From my understanding, lust is more along the line of what takes place in the brain when one visits a strip-club or brothel, rather than rolling in the sheets with someone you've mutually fallen in love with.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

Really? I’m looking at a list of usages of the term πορνείας (porneias) in the New Testament, and I don’t think I’m seeing what you’re seeing; it looks to me like ‘porneias’ was some kind of general term that was applied to nearly any kind of sex outside of the marriage relationship. Maybe back then, they didn’t feel that a wide swath of terms was needed to describe an illicit sex act—Jews knew what they deemed to be sin, despite what sect they belonged to, and they likely adhered to a somewhat singular sex ethic. More than likely, there wasn’t much up for discussion from a Jewish perspective. Sexual sin was … sin. Nowadays, especially with our English language, we’re very good and slicing and dicing our terms to try to get at some more or less precise meaning. And now we try to slice and dice old Greek terms and thought forms with our modern interpretations, in what seems to me to be a fairly anachronistic fashion, in order to get at some kind of exact meaning—(maybe to see if we can find some kind of loophole… I mean….who doesn’t’ want to have sex these days, in the way and fashion that we want to? )

Why would it refer to any kind of sex outside of marriage if they explicitly list the laws of sexual morality in Leviticus 18? Why make a special mention of every single one of those different things they found immoral if we're supposed to just assume that any sex outside marriage is a sin. Just say "any" then. If they list off specific things, I see no reason to think they thought other things were sinful as well. It would be like adding to the list without reason. Why not just say that kissing outside of marriage is sinful as well? There has to be a good reason to add things to that list in order for me to think it should be.

Well, I’m no expert in Koine Greek either, but that shouldn’t stop us since we've got access to info from those who are experts.

In my estimation, I’d say that there wasn’t much for Paul to say. From the ancient Jewish perspective of Paul’s time, what more was there to say about any kind of sex outside the marriage between a man and a woman? However, respective of his theological understanding, and from the context of what Paul wrote to the Corinthians, I don’t think he really expected most people to be celibate, and I have a feeling that the original 1st commandment was fixed quite firmly in the back of his mind (i.e. “Be fruitful and multiply…”).

He didn't expect them to succeed at being celibate and unmarried, but he did say that it would be the best thing. He said it would be best if everyone was like him (conceited much? ha!).

They also had a double standard for men and women back in the day. Women were shamed for being prostitutes, but where's the evidence that men were shamed for visiting them?

It seems there is a lot more that needs to be said in order for it to actually say all premarital sex is a sin for both men and women.

Well, you’re going to have a difficult time in demonstrating that good, upstanding Jews of Paul's times were just having a whole lot of that kind of thing before marriage.

I didn't say good, upstanding Jews were doing things on the list of sexually immoral sins. That would be preposterous. What do you mean by "that kind of thing"? Just sex before marriage between two single consenting adults? Maybe not, but they didn't date back then, they bought. So I fail to see how we should anachronistically apply his morality to us today if that's the case.

I don’t think that “liking” what Paul says has as much to do with the level of social cogency of his statements as does our “understanding” of why Paul said what he said. Additionally, I think we really have to incline ourselves to understand what he meant when he wrote,

ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος (i.e. the time is shortened, or being “wrapped up.”)

No, I’d have to disagree somewhat with you there. I think we need to take what Paul says here in a fuller context with other eschatological comments he makes throughout the same letter to the Corinthians. It seems that when he wrote this letter, he was under the impression that Jesus’ ‘revelation’ (whatever that fully means) would take place within the lifetime of his own generation. So, yeah…Paul was concerned that people would get too ensconced in social activities that, even though they were normal things of life, like marriage and family, and these same people could end up having to face some unexpected perils or heartaches along the way due to what he thought was impending eschatology; members of a family might be martyred or imprisoned. He implies as much.

So Paul was giving advice based on the fact that he thought the end was nigh, but he was dead wrong. So why should we listen to his advice?

What's that part in the Bible that says that all women should cover their heads in church? I forget where, but I'd bet you're familiar with it though. Should women still do that? No. Because it applied to a specific situation that was specific to those times.

Since that chapter was based at least in part on what Paul thought was going on back then, it's going to take more than one verse to convince me that we should apply that verse to our modern times.

This is a whole other discussion. But, I’ll just say for now that in some small way, I agree; sex before marriage doesn’t necessarily equate to lust. From my understanding, lust is more along the line of what takes place in the brain when one visits a strip-club or brothel, rather than rolling in the sheets with someone you've mutually fallen in love with.

I don't think it's a whole other discussion at all. We're discussing whether all forms of fornication are a sin, are we not? I would say that there is plenty of evidence to say that hooking up with someone you just met in a bar is a sin, sure. But I would not say there is evidence hardly at all that a couple who has been dating for 6 months, has fallen in love, but doesn't feel ready to make the financial, spiritual, emotional commitment of marriage should refrain from making love.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It seems to be slowly developing in the minds of the people

It is a sad thing that "in the minds of the people" has accepted a lot of sinful motives and behaviors, even in (so-called) Churches.

Yhwh is not pleased, and since "Judgment begins in the house of Yhwh" (before those outside the house of Yhwh are Judged)
there is a lot of house cleaning to be done.

No one will get away with the sin they thought was hidden, everything will be revealed, even the things done in secret that are so shameful that ought not to be even talked about in the assembly of ekkleisa, just as it is written,
and everyone will be judged for what they have done, whether righteously or sinfully.

 

[joshua 1 9]

1 Corinthians 7:2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Fornication-A single person having someone's Biblical (covenant) companion.

It seems to be slowly developing in the minds of the people that when a man who has no living wife marries a woman with a husband that that man will be free to divorce this woman and be free to marry another. The man is guilty of fornication and may marry another but the woman is bound to her first companion. -Church of Prophecy

If somebody does something that is worthy of death then the innocent party is free to remarry, but Paul says they will have problems in the flesh and they may be better off to stay single. Far to often people marry the same sort of person and get themselves into the same mess all over again. 80% of first marriages survive. 50% of all marriages survive.

 

[Joe Green]

You are not rightly dividing the word of God. The innocent party is not free to remarry.

 

[Freedom Now]

There is only one reason, a person can get remarried according to God's standard,

and that is death of the spouse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why would it refer to any kind of sex outside of marriage if they explicitly list the laws of sexual morality in Leviticus 18? Why make a special mention of every single one of those different things they found immoral if we're supposed to just assume that any sex outside marriage is a sin. Just say "any" then. If they list off specific things, I see no reason to think they thought other things were sinful as well. It would be like adding to the list without reason. Why not just say that kissing outside of marriage is sinful as well? There has to be a good reason to add things to that list in order for me to think it should be.

Sigh...I don't even know what precise point you are debating here in this paragraph. As to Paul's usage of the word πορνείας (porneias) in 1 Corinthians 7:2, it looks like the context shapes his meaning to specifically express "fornication," but the term can also be used more generally...

Here's a list of the usages of this word in the New Testament, along with a small comparison of how it has been translated in some of the more prominent English versions.

He didn't expect them to succeed at being celibate and unmarried, but he did say that it would be the best thing. He said it would be best if everyone was like him (conceited much? ha!).

I'm just going to roll my eyes at this comment, Nicholas. From what Paul fully writes, not only in chapter 7, but in the entire letter of 1 Corinthians, he is doing anything but expecting the Corinthians to be celibate, and there is little in his writing that indicates conceit on his part either.

When you read, what goes on in your head? Do you approach each individual verse or sentence as a disconnected entity from the rest of what is written? (You shouldn't!) I'm guessing you don't, but when you say the things you say, or interpret biblical ideas the way you do, I begin to get the sense that you're just a "deductive hack." Deduction is useful, but it has limits, limits you don't seem to recognize, especially as applied to the fragmentary thoughts represented in the New Testament.

They also had a double standard for men and women back in the day. Women were shamed for being prostitutes, but where's the evidence that men were shamed for visiting them?

Well, there is another related term that Paul uses, πόρνοις (pornos), which does put a label on the kind of person (typically a guy) who chases skirts ... even those related to "money dates."

Here's a list of the usages of this word, too, in the New Testament. (I've always thought it interesting that the KJV translators chose the term, "harlot-monger" as an English equivalent. That makes it sound especially nasty.)

It seems there is a lot more that needs to be said in order for it to actually say all premarital sex is a sin for both men and women.

Some of this is only semantic confusion in our attempts to compare social protocols specific to different cultures in different ages ...

In other words, yes, perhaps something like "common law marriage" could be within the parameters of biblical marriage, as long as the couple is of the opposite sex AND have decided to be committed to each other for life AND aren't necessarily living out their relationship in an anonymous way, unaccountable to the surrounding community, their family, or God. [However, I think this is still stretching at the seams of what God would prefer to see in people's pre-marital relationships...]

So Paul was giving advice based on the fact that he thought the end was nigh, but he was dead wrong. So why should we listen to his advice?

No, he wasn't dead wrong, but since that issue isn't a moral one, I'm not going to expound upon it here, especially since I'm not wanting to get this thread closed because all of this is turning into that dreaded "A" word, which isn't really supposed to be taking place in this particular forum.

What's that part in the Bible that says that all women should cover their heads in church? I forget where, but I'd bet you're familiar with it though. Should women still do that? No. Because it applied to a specific situation that was specific to those times.

I agree with your general conclusions here, but should Christian women be free to dress and look like men today? Or, more interestingly, vice versa? I'm thinking that the underlying idea Paul stated about women and head coverings, however culturally specific and ensconced it was for 1st century Corinth, still has "some" application today.

Since that chapter was based at least in part on what Paul thought was going on back then, it's going to take more than one verse to convince me that we should apply that verse to our modern times.

Yeah...me too.

I don't think it's a whole other discussion at all. We're discussing whether all forms of fornication are a sin, are we not? I would say that there is plenty of evidence to say that hooking up with someone you just met in a bar is a sin, sure. But I would not say there is evidence hardly at all that a couple who has been dating for 6 months, has fallen in love, but doesn't feel ready to make the financial, spiritual, emotional commitment of marriage should refrain from making love.

And where in the New Testament does it indicate that there is a "free for all" for making love, as long as two people are in love? I'd say there's probably "no" evidence for that ...

2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

I'll respond to the rest later, but for now, let's just start with these:

I'm just going to roll my eyes at this comment, Nicholas. From what Paul fully writes, not only in chapter 7, but in the entire letter of 1 Corinthians, he is doing anything but expecting the Corinthians to be celibate, and there is little in his writing that indicates conceit on his part either.

When I say that Paul didn't expect them to succeed at being celibate, what makes you roll your eyes when I'm agreeing with you? Because I add that qualifier "succeed"? That's what he means in context. He says over and over it would be best to remain single, but people will be prone to fail at not being "sexually immoral" if they don't have a spousal outlet for their "passion", so get married. He isn't expecting them to be single. But the reason he doesn't expect them to be single is that he knows they won't succeed at not being "sexually immoral". He says it would be the best thing to not get married though.

When you read, what goes on in your head? Do you approach each individual verse or sentence as a disconnected entity from the rest of what is written? (You shouldn't!) I'm guessing you don't, but when you say the things you say, or interpret biblical ideas the way you do, I begin to get the sense that you're just a "deductive hack." Deduction is useful, but it has limits, limits you don't seem to recognize, especially as applied to the fragmentary thoughts represented in the New Testament.

Have I failed in some way to draw from multiple sections of the Bible to address any given topic that makes you think I only think about one verse at a time? This is honestly a bit insulting as far as accusations go since you and I have talked quite a bit. What I've been stating is that every other use of the word "porneias" doesn't mean what you say Paul means, so why would you assume that is what Paul meant? See how I look at all sorts of different parts of the Bible and not just laser-focus on one verse?

 

[Moral Orel]

No, he wasn't dead wrong, but since that issue isn't a moral one, I'm not going to expound upon it here, especially since I'm not wanting to get this thread closed because all of this is turning into that dreaded "A" word, which isn't really supposed to be taking place in this particular forum.

Right, so let's throw in the non-Biblical angle that no one is talking about. Advice to limit sexual activity had a lot of importance... a long time ago. Less so now. Is sex ever risk free? No. Not even in marriage. Risk of STDs is largely mitigated if you use protection. Protection wasn't always available, so being extra cautious was important because infections could be a death sentence. Now, even if you do get an STD, it isn't a death sentence (even HIV). Protection used in conjunction with birth control can almost eliminate the risk of unwanted pregnancy. And since we have systems in place for adoption (without needing to mention the other dreaded "A" word) that didn't exist before, the off-chance of becoming pregnant doesn't mean that a person's life is drastically altered.

To top all of it off, it's a wholly different endeavor to try to remain celibate until marriage in the modern age. When the average marrying age was 12-14 in olden times, it was easy enough to wait a couple years if you didn't get married immediately at the onset of puberty. Now, in order to be responsible and ensure you have a good education and a good job before raising a family, you need to wait well into your 20s. Insisting on celibacy causes many people to rush into marriages in order to act according to their moral code, only to realize later that they don't like their spouse as much as they thought they did. Or they realize that they no longer have the ability to get an education or a career that they planned to. The most common factor in divorce is marrying at a young age.

I mentioned adoption earlier as a way to mitigate the problems a person faces from an unplanned pregnancy, but think of it from a different angle. These unplanned pregnancies create children for people who can't bear them themselves. This "problem" is actually a God-send for many people who would never be able to raise children without it existing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right, so let's throw in the non-Biblical angle that no one is talking about. Advice to limit sexual activity had a lot of importance... a long time ago. Less so now. Is sex ever risk free? No. Not even in marriage. Risk of STDs is largely mitigated if you use protection. Protection wasn't always available, so being extra cautious was important because infections could be a death sentence. Now, even if you do get an STD, it isn't a death sentence (even HIV). Protection used in conjunction with birth control can almost eliminate the risk of unwanted pregnancy. And since we have systems in place for adoption (without needing to mention the other dreaded "A" word) that didn't exist before, the off-chance of becoming pregnant doesn't mean that a person's life is drastically altered.

The "a" word I was referring to earlier was "Apologetics," ....but yes, there are other "a" words like adultery and/or abortion, etc. that are problematic in other ways for our discussion.

As to your explication above about sex and health risks: I agree. And the bible encourages a lifestyle that would be (is) less prone to these ailments.

To top all of it off, it's a wholly different endeavor to try to remain celibate until marriage in the modern age. When the average marrying age was 12-14 in olden times, it was easy enough to wait a couple years if you didn't get married immediately at the onset of puberty. Now, in order to be responsible and ensure you have a good education and a good job before raising a family, you need to wait well into your 20s. Insisting on celibacy causes many people to rush into marriages in order to act according to their moral code, only to realize later that they don't like their spouse as much as they thought they did. Or they realize that they no longer have the ability to get an education or a career that they planned to. The most common factor in divorce is marrying at a young age.

Yes, and this is where our society has gone wrong, in my estimation, as I'm always telling my wife. We've developed the view that we should all have "independence," but parents like to use this new value as an excuse to push the little "chicks" out on their own into this big scary world in which we live: the kids have to start "their own [independent] family unit," and usually do this with the procurement of their "own" [independent] living facilities, and mostly under their own [independent] endeavors to eke out a living.

Of course, with all of this independence being foisted in all directions, no wonder we hamper each other socially and emotionally (and make excuses as parents to our kids as to why we don't need to help the kids, and that they should be able to make it on their own--and earn the space and time to have sex). All of which doesn't....quite...seem like it fits the biblical pattern. And who do we have to blame for youngsters being 'forced' to "WAIT" for marriage and the accompanying sex? Well, it isn't God. This wasn't the plan He came up with ... No, this is the Enlightment Plan, because we're so enlightened with our Independence (and what we hope our kids will do with it so as to un-encumber us in our own lifestyles as parents).

I mentioned adoption earlier as a way to mitigate the problems a person faces from an unplanned pregnancy, but think of it from a different angle. These unplanned pregnancies create children for people who can't bear them themselves. This "problem" is actually a God-send for many people who would never be able to raise children without it existing.

Well, if parents saw their roll as integral in the lives of their children for the whole of one's life as a parent, then a large portion of all of this social crud about pre-marital sex, having to wait with abstinence, or children born to unwed mothers, could be reduced instead of everyone pawning off the various angles of responsibility that the whole family should have to shoulder for both young people being able to be married young (and thus have legitimate sex at a younger age) and for the resulting children who will thereby likely come into the world.

For those who wonder: Yes, I've already told my son that when he finds a young lady, if it helps him and her, she can move in so they don't have to be financially strapped if they want to get married young (and be with each other).

But, this sense of biblical family responsibility seems to have been delusively jettisoned, even by Christians in our modern world. Obviously, I'm not saying that there aren't people around who don't take it upon themselves to help their kids, whether they be non-Christian secularists or Christian, but on the whole, there's an idea that "your sexual activities as a youngster need to be done away from, and without the help and supervision of, one's parents and/or extended family."

Well, everyone, good luck with all of that!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll respond to the rest later, but for now, let's just start with these:

When I say that Paul didn't expect them to succeed at being celibate, what makes you roll your eyes when I'm agreeing with you? Because I add that qualifier "succeed"? That's what he means in context. He says over and over it would be best to remain single,

I guess, if by one's saying "over and over" amounts to mentioning and alluding to some basic idea 3 or 4 times. In verse 7:7, Paul says: "For I wish that all men were even as I myself [celibate]. But each one has his own gift form God, one in this manner and another in that." I find it problematic that Paul refers to either state as "a gift," from God no less. It doesn't quite seem like he's under the impression that celibacy is indeed superior in all respects; only in that if one's one to be able to devote one's life to God without one's attention being divided to other, "normal" things, then celibacy is functionally superior.

But the reason he doesn't expect them to be single is that he knows they won't succeed at not being "sexually immoral".

Is it? Is it, really?

Have I failed in some way to draw from multiple sections of the Bible to address any given topic that makes you think I only think about one verse at a time? This is honestly a bit insulting as far as accusations go since you and I have talked quite a bit. What I've been stating is that every other use of the word "porneias" doesn't mean what you say Paul means, so why would you assume that is what Paul meant? See how I look at all sorts of different parts of the Bible and not just laser-focus on one verse?

You need to be a bit more succinct as to what your primary point is. It almost seems like we agree, but because some of your statements seem to grow tentacles, I may have a difficult time pinpointing what precisely you want to say or what its relevance is. (And...I know some of this could be due to a lack of clear perception on my part, and I'm willing to admit that, Nicholas. Maybe I just need to read what you're saying more carefully.)

 

[Moral Orel]

Of course, with all of this independence being foisted in all directions, no wonder we hamper each other socially and emotionally (and make excuses as parents to our kids as to why we don't need to help the kids, and that they should be able to make it on their own--and earn the space and time to have sex). All of which doesn't....quite...seem like it fits the biblical pattern. And who do we have to blame for youngsters being 'forced' to "WAIT" for marriage and the accompanying sex? Well, it isn't God. This wasn't the plan He came up with ... No, this is the Enlightment Plan, because we're so enlightened with our Independence (and what we hope our kids will do with it so as to un-encumber us in our own lifestyles as parents).

This part bothers me the most. In a perfect world, parents would support their children even after they get married until they can support themselves, right? This would allow kids to get married younger, which seems to be what you're implying God's plan is, right?

If financial difficulties stop being an issue, do you really think it is good for people to get married young? The average marrying age was 12-14 so that children didn't have to wait after they started puberty to begin raising a family. Do you think teenagers are fit to make a decision that will affect the rest of their life?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This part bothers me the most. In a perfect world, parents would support their children even after they get married until they can support themselves, right? This would allow kids to get married younger, which seems to be what you're implying God's plan is, right?

If financial difficulties stop being an issue, do you really think it is good for people to get married young? The average marrying age was 12-14 so that children didn't have to wait after they started puberty to begin raising a family. Do you think teenagers are fit to make a decision that will affect the rest of their life?

How do you think this kind of thing was socially orchestrated in Biblical times (whether Jewish or Gentile)?

Considering the "ideal" context of what I've said previously, to what extent do you think 'the kids' would be permitted (apart from the other consideration of their being able) to make completely autonomous decisions about how, when, and where they get married and have sex (and then have children of their own)? What point do you think I'm trying to get at, really? Am I really advocating that 12-14 year olds should be able to universally decide what they want to do?

Actually, I have more in mind the other end of the "independence" age scale...i.e. those who are told to wait but who are already in their very late teens or even in their twenties, or worse yet, even in their thirties.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

Considering the "ideal" context of what I've said previously, to what extent do you think 'the kids' would be permitted (apart from the other consideration of their being able) to make completely autonomous decisions about how, when, and where they get married and have sex (and then have children of their own)? What point do you think I'm trying to get at, really? Am I really advocating that 12-14 year olds should be able to universally decide what they want to do?

I believe you think that given the ideal circumstances, and given proper advice or guidance or even control from parents that it is possible to make a good decision about who to marry when people are very young. Perhaps not all the way down to 12, but somewhere in the teens.

People change rapidly when they're younger, and change much slower as they get older. Not just physically, obviously, but their personality as well. Picking a partner when you are just a teenager because who they are at that time appeals to you is foolish because over time what appeals to you will change and who they are will change. People shouldn't make a decision that affects the rest of their life when they are just a teenager, even if parents with more wisdom have a say in the matter. And parents, no matter how wise, don't know who their child will become nor do they know who their prospective partner will become. This is why, as I said, marrying at a young age is one of the most common factors in divorce. Here is one such article that explains it.

Some excerpts:

“Those who wed between 14 and 17 years of age are twice as likely to divorce as couples who wait until their 20s,” says James C. Dobson, Ph.D.

“Many couples who marry too early haven’t achieved a fully formed self.” She advises couples to wait until they’re in their late 20’s. “This allows for a period of Identity Exploration and a time to figure one’s self out,”​

So it seems awfully likely to me that getting married very young are going to end up with an unhappy marriage. If they stick to the Bible, and don't get divorced, then they'll just be unhappy. It takes more than just two kind, loving people to make a good marriage. I certainly wasn't the same person at all when I was 25 as I was when I was 15. Were you? But at 35, I'm not much different from my 25-year-old self. Perhaps a bit more tired.