Fornication definition

[Bootstrap]

In English, 'fornication' clearly means sex between people who are not married, though the definition of sex is not clear. There was at least one court case where the wife was held not to have committed adultery because she had lesbian sex, and there was no penetration involving a penis. So there's some fuzziness here, but the word is relatively well defined, and you can find the definition in a dictionary.

The words for adultery in English or in Greek are also well-defined, except for imprecision in defining exactly when you are actually having sex.

The Greek term porneia, however, is fuzzier. It clearly includes prostitution and certainly temple prostitution, but it also involves other forms of sexual immorality. In older bibles it was generally translated 'fornication', but I haven't yet seen anything that convinces me that it covered premarital sex, and fornication clearly does. Perhaps because of this, it is often translated 'sexual immorality', which nicely captures some of the ambiguity of the term, it doesn't specify just exactly what it is that is sexually immoral. (My source for this is BDAG, but you kind of need to know Greek to use this lexicon.)

So suppose you want to prove that butterfly kisses are wrong. It's not enough to point to a lot of verses that say God doesn't like porneia, you have to demonstrate that butterfly kisses would have fallen into the category of porneia. And so far, I've found that maddeningly difficult beyond going to prostitutes and committing adultery. I'm sure the New Testament writers would have put other things into that category, but in the lexicons, I can't see clear lines showing what goes into that category and what does not, and when I look at the texts, it doesn't seem to be the fault of the lexicons.

I don't know Hebrew, maybe someone out there does and can comment.


Jonathan

 

[HuntingMan]

So suppose you want to prove that butterfly kisses are wrong. It's not enough to point to a lot of verses that say God doesn't like porneia, you have to demonstrate that butterfly kisses would have fallen into the category of porneia.

Jonathan

Thats very true.
However, we CAN look at the context of the whole word of God and see where it is that He created sex for from the beginning and that seems to be the lawful union of a man and a woman called 'marriage'.

Unless it can be shown that sex outside marriage is 'lawful' then it can be concluded that it is 'unlawful' based on passages that show such things as if a man has sex with an UNbetrothed (unmarried) virgin he is to marry her helping us to understand (again) that marriage is where sex was created for.

Have premarital sex if one insists, even call it 'lawful' if one wants....but be sure to marry the woman when you are finished...just as Gods word presents

 

[dead2self]

Huntignman,

First off, no Piper does not base any doctrine on this. Second, after reading your argumenst I am still not convinced. I'm sorry but I've got to simply make a call here between two people who are teaching different things. Both seem to be very well thought out and I can really see nothing majorly wrong with either. But only one can be rigth and as I said, I know and trust Piper. An no I'm not just mindlessly following a preacher I like. I truly think Piper has it right here, as I see the very same thing. And I have indeed read the passage and I do get it.

Now I can see, however, that you have far more resources and knowlege than I do and I do not have Piper's notes to mount an effective defence. Plus, your tenacity seems boundless and I haven't yet seen you admit to being wrong. As it seems we agree on the meaning of fornication anyway and this is really jsut a trivial matter and I will simply drop the matter with you. I've got better things to do.

 

[dead2self]

Actually THIS is the insult they levy at Christ;

Then the Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say well that You are a Samaritan, and You have a demon?"
(Joh 8:48 EMTV)


Joh 8:48 -
Thou art a Samaritan -
This was the same, among them, as heretic, or schismatic, among us. This is the only time in which the Jews gave our Lord this title of reproach; and they probably grounded it on his having preached among them, and lodged in their villages. See the account in Joh_4:39, Joh_4:40; but Samaritan, among them, meant a person unworthy of any credit.
Hast a devil? -
Art possessed by an evil spirit; and art, in consequence, deranged.
Adam Clarkes Commentary on the Bible

Thou art a Samaritan -
This was a term of contempt and reproach. See the notes at Joh_4:9. It had the force of charging him with being a heretic or a schismatic, because the Samaritans were regarded as such.
Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible
​

When we know what the Jews felt about Samaritans then we see that they insult Him here quite clearly by calling Him a Samaritan and demonized and we dont have to read into the text things that arent actually there.


.

That has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand. Not everyone who is not you is an unread imbicile in Biblical matters my friend. I am quite aware of what Samaritans are and how they were viewed.

 

[HuntingMan]

Huntignman,
First off, no Piper does not base any doctrine on this. Second, after reading your argumenst I am still not convinced.

Did you really look at the evidence presented or just browse it over and decide it was wrong without actually trying to see if it all fits with the texts ?

I'm sorry but I've got to simply make a call here between two people who are teaching different things. Both seem to be very well thought out and I can really see nothing majorly wrong with either. But only one can be rigth and as I said, I know and trust Piper.

So Piper is 'right by default' simply because you have decided to trust him ?
I use a LOT of different scholars, but when I see they are wrong, I reject their conclusions. I dont simply agree with them on something questionable because I agree with them on 99% of everything else.

As I mentioned before, please just keep reading the passage and dont ADD into it anything that isnt there. It will all come together eventually.
Piper could be a really decent teacher but that doesnt make him right on every point. None of us are right on EVERY point
This isnt about Piper or myself being right or wrong...its ONLY about what the evidence shows and what view logically fits the facts as a whole.

An no I'm not just mindlessly following a preacher I like. I truly think Piper has it right here, as I see the very same thing. And I have indeed read the passage and I do get it.

Oddly I dont see a single of the old scholars who 'got it' that way.
Ive only seen a handful of 'modern' ones who do.
It cannot be as clear as you and Piper believe for so many old scholars to have completely missed the insinuation.

Now I can see, however, that you have far more resources and knowlege than I do and I do not have Piper's notes to mount an effective defence.

You sound as if you have plenty of knowledge about scripture
I think this just boils down to either accepting what the texts SHOW overall instead of letting someone tell you what they mean.

Ive seen this view of Pipers before, I believe sealedeternal also holds that view that they were accusing Jesus of being born of whoredom, but it simply does not hold water given the facts from the whole of Gods word.

Plus, your tenacity seems boundless

Its not really tenacity, btw, its more just that I have lots of free time

and I haven't yet seen you admit to being wrong.

Pay more attention then because Ive stated quite clearly of late that Ive had to completely change my views on what scripture teaches about polygamy
Very grudgingly, but I had no choice because I was wrong in believing what I did.
And let me ask you this....WHERE does Piper admit to being wrong ?
Is that the guage we use for truth now ? A man is right if he admits to being wrong ? How does that work ?

As it seems we agree on the meaning of fornication anyway and this is really jsut a trivial matter and I will simply drop the matter with you. I've got better things to do.

I suppose since that is the topic of the thread it would be rude to continually pursue this point then.
I honestly believed it would be ok to take a look at it which is why I brought it up

God bless

 

[HuntingMan]

That has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand.

It was about the 'insult' made by the Jews against Christ so it was quite in line with the post I quoted.

Not everyone who is not you is an unread imbicile in Biblical matters my friend.

And I dont remember saying that anyone was or is

I am quite aware of what Samaritans are and how they were viewed.

Great

 

[The Gregorian]

3. This leads us to understand that God impregnating Mary was committing adultery. But since we believe God can do what He wants then we are OK with it. I personally would have liked God going to Joseph and getting premission there also. Then God would have both Joseph's and Mary's permission to bring Jesus into the world thru them.

That opens up a whole new can of worms. Sex outside of marriage is different than impregnation. Unless sperm donors are all adulterers because they cause impregnation even though the never saw the person, let alone had any sexual contact. Besides... by my understanding, God didn't fertilize mary, he just sort of put Jesus in there. Jesus isn't "half God, half mary... I'm not entirely sure he had any of mary's DNA... I think his zygote form was just kinda stuck in there and mary was the surrogate mother...

I could be wrong of course... either way, God didn't have sex with mary. I'm pretty sure that'd kill her. Like Goku or superman or something.

Unless it can be shown that sex outside marriage is 'lawful' then it can be concluded that it is 'unlawful' based on passages that show such things as if a man has sex with an UNbetrothed (unmarried) virgin he is to marry her helping us to understand (again) that marriage is where sex was created for.

Have premarital sex if one insists, even call it 'lawful' if one wants....but be sure to marry the woman when you are finished...just as Gods word presents

Now THAT'S dangerous... Unless it's proven lawful, it's assumed to be unlawful... that's just asking for trouble. That's about as reasonable as "unless there's a direct commandment against it, it must be directly commanded by God" ... i.e. "thou shalt buy cheesey poofs... cuz it doesn't say not to."

 

[The Gregorian]

Premarital sex was barely an issue then, it was more adultery and pagan worship. As with polygamy, it was only condemned when pagan worship became apart of it.

This is the most on topic post recently. Using the phrase porneia at Jesus happened... it could be interpreted different ways... most likely they were using it as a play on words to mean both... think we can move on to the next tangent?

Is there anything in the bible that constitutes such strict codes of abstinence as most denominations suggest? Of course, different sexual behaviors aren't directly mentioned in the bible (except in the song of solomon, where pretty dirty things are mentioned in a positive light), but why is it looked down upon so much?

Are there any actual scriptures that would suggest that "non-intercourse sexual activity" is immoral?

 

[HuntingMan]

Now THAT'S dangerous... Unless it's proven lawful, it's assumed to be unlawful... that's just asking for trouble. That's about as reasonable as "unless there's a direct commandment against it, it must be directly commanded by God" ... i.e. "thou shalt buy cheesey poofs... cuz it doesn't say not to."

Did you miss something in what you quoted ?

"Unless it can be shown that sex outside marriage is 'lawful' then it can be concluded that it is 'unlawful' based on passages that show such things as if a man has sex with an UNbetrothed (unmarried) virgin he is to marry her helping us to understand (again) that marriage is where sex was created for.
​

Sorry, but we arent talking about something that DOESNT have any foundation in scripture such as buying cheesy poofs.

Gods word overall shows fairly conclusively that sex is FOR marriage, not anywhere else. So the assumption that sex us UNlawful outside of marriage IS based on scriptural support and unless someone can show that it is lawful I would conclude that UNmarried sex is UNlawful based on scripture as a whole.

 

[The Gregorian]

Gods word overall shows fairly conclusively that sex is FOR marriage, not anywhere else. So the assumption that sex us UNlawful outside of marriage IS based on scriptural support and unless someone can show that it is lawful I would conclude that UNmarried sex is UNlawful based on scripture as a whole.

Where?

Abraham's wife was not conceiving so she asked Abraham to go into their servant in order to produce an heir. Was abraham sinning in doing so? If you and your wife agree for some reason, that they want a third person involved... and that third person agrees... are they not following the biblical example set forth by Abraham?

... also, you say that "sex is FOR marriage" ... so does that mean "intercourse" or "all pleasurable activities?" ... If I give someone a massage, is that sinful? What if I give them a massage that results in excitement... keeping my clothes on the whole time.

I'm not trying to just argue here... I just think this is an interesting debate... there is no clear line, so it's a good challenge to try to figure out where the line is, and how blurry it is. By the letter of the bible, prostitution is to be abstained from... it says nothing about premarital sexual activity, from what I've found. Without even saying that premarital sex is wrong... it's hard to draw the line as to what lesser variations are acceptable.

 

[HuntingMan]

Where?

Youre joking, right ?
How about ALL thru the ENTIRE thing....its pretty much impossible to miss, friend.

Abraham's wife was not conceiving so she asked Abraham to go into their servant in order to produce an heir. Was abraham sinning in doing so? If you and your wife agree for some reason, that they want a third person involved... and that third person agrees... are they not following the biblical example set forth by Abraham?

So you take Sarahs MISTAKE as meaning what ?
And did you miss this ?

And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, andgave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
(Gen 16:3 KJV)
​

... also, you say that "sex is FOR marriage" ... so does that mean "intercourse" or "all pleasurable activities?" ... If I give someone a massage, is that sinful? What if I give them a massage that results in excitement... keeping my clothes on the whole time.

come chap, lets not play games here. We ALL know what 'sex' is
Is a massage 'sinful' ? I cant make that judgment.
Does sex belong in a marriage between a man and woman ? Absolutely.

I'm not trying to just argue here... I just think this is an interesting debate... there is no clear line,

There IS a clear line when folks dont try to mirk it up

By the letter of the bible, prostitution is to be abstained from... it says nothing about premarital sexual activity,

Actually it does.
If you have sex with an UNmarried woman you are to marry her (Exo 22:16, Deu 22:28-29)

Exo 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
​

If she was married then it is adultery.

Without even saying that premarital sex is wrong... it's hard to draw the line as to what lesser variations are acceptable.

innappropriate 'touching' does not need to be understood as 'fornication'.
'sin' ? Probably.
'harlotry' ? Depends on what is being touched.

Its almost as though people prefer these lines being made 'fuzzy', to be quite honest.

 

[The Gregorian]

So you take Sarahs MISTAKE as meaning what ?

How do you know it to be a mistake? She was barren until she allowed Abraham to produce Ishmael... and immediately after God rewarded them with children of their own. Had she not given Hagar to him, Abraham's line may have ended right then and there... and the bible would be much different. How do you see it as a mistake?

And did you miss this ?

And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, andgave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
(Gen 16:3 KJV)​

​

Some bibles insert the word "wife" there... some use the term concubine... which seems to be more accurate because when people referred to Abraham's "wife" they always referred to Sarah, not Hagar. Hagar was not a "wife" equal to Sarah, she was treated as a concubine throughout the text. And the word translated as "wife" here simply means "woman of his"... which sometimes can be used to mean "wife." Most people accept Hagar to be a concubine, though. Sarah still had authority over Hagar unlike two equal wives.

come chap, lets not play games here. We ALL know what 'sex' is
Is a massage 'sinful' ? I cant make that judgment.

Bah! But that's the point of the thread! It's supposed to be a challenge to try to come up with a consensus. The extreme form of sex (penile-vaginal intercourse for the purpose of reproduction) is easy to label as "for marriage" ... but the challenge is: "is non-intercourse sexual activity before marriage inherently wrong? and why?" I'm not talking someone who does dirty things with random people on the street and cheapens their body and disrespects themselves.... But if you're in a stable relationship with someone and are engaged... at what point do you think God considers sexuality immoral? Is kissing fine, but french kissing over the line? Is a massage OK as long as no one is excited by it? Is any contact with the genitals a no no, but the rest of the body OK? Because I've seen some interesting things happen just touching a girl's back.

There IS a clear line when folks dont try to mix it up

How are you going to get chocolate milk without mixing anything up? How are you going to bake a delicious cake without mixing ingredients?

... you said "mirk," not "mix." But I'd already thought of such a witty response for "when folks don't try to mix it up" that I decided to keep it.

Actually it does.
If you have sex with an UNmarried woman you are to marry her (Deu 22:28-29)

But is that not part of the old covenant that was ratified by Jesus? Or should menstruating women still yell "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!" as they walk in public? (ok, that's a cheap argument for anything in the OT, not specifically discussed in the NT).

But, a valid question: Does that mean premarital sex is not wrong as long as you marry her? I can honestly say I've never had consensual sex with someone I did not honestly plan on marrying (only been a couple. And I specify "consensual" because one girl sort of just "hopped on" without permission... but that's a whole different can of worms).

innappropriate 'touching' does not need to be understood as 'fornication'.
'sin' ? Probably.
'harlotry' ? Depends on what is being touched.

What makes you say probably? Personal opinion, or? And I think it's more "How" something is touched, not "what." Otherwise OBGYNs are all going to hell. Contrastingly, as stated above... there are ways you can touch non-private parts to "interesting" effect. ... then again "how" is subjective.

hence the point in discussing it. Cuz I'm bored.

 

[HuntingMan]

Some bibles insert the word "wife" there... some use the term concubine...

The Hebrew means 'to woman' which would be understood as 'to wife'.
Its the same way the Greek an Hebrew BOTH work from what Ive seen.. a mans 'woman' is his wife.

How do you know it to be a mistake?and immediately after God rewarded them with children of their own. Had she not given Hagar to him, Abraham's line may have ended right then and there... and the bible would be much different. How do you see it as a mistake?

God didnt tell Sarah to do what she did...SHE made the decision to rush the game.
Can you show me where NOT waiting for GOD to do what He said He would do was the 'right' thing to do ?
How would Abes line have ended ?
Do you believe that God might not have kept His word that Sarah would have a child ?
Sarah acted from UNbelief and doubt.
That is rarely a good thing in scripture.

But that's the point of the thread! It's supposed to be a challenge to try to come up with a consensus.

Anyone who can read the WHOLE NT even and conclude that sex belongs anywhere but a marriage of a man and a woman didnt pay attention...not to mention reading the whole bible.

How are you going to get chocolate milk without mixing anything up? How are you going to bake a delicious cake without mixing ingredients?

... you said "mirk," not "mix." But I'd already thought of such a witty response for "when folks don't try to mix it up" that I decided to keep it.

Unlike some, I prefer NOT to purposefully try to confuse issues that dont need to be confused.
Maybe some like to do it to have an issue to debate, but I find that a complete waste of time and effort and it only serves to confuse folks who may not have the time to study Gods word like theyd like.

WE created the confusion, not God.
WE are the ones who cannot keep our genitalia in our pants so we distort the lines in an attempt to remove our own guilt.

But is that not part of the old covenant that was ratified by Jesus?

???
Jesus' death was to ratify this new covenant.
Secondly if we play this game then having sex with a brother or sister is 'ok' now, I assume since its not specifically mentioned in the NT ?

Or should menstruating women still yell "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!" as they walk in public? (ok, that's a cheap argument for anything in the OT, not specifically discussed in the NT).

Exactly
There is a LOT of law that ISNT repeated specifically in the NT that we KNOW we are to follow..including abstaining from incest and bestiality

But, a valid question: Does that mean premarital sex is not wrong as long as you marry her?

Personally Id take being forced to marry her simply as showing that it is wrong to have sex outside marriage when compared with all the rest of scripture.
Can you get away with it ?
obviously someone must have, but does that mean we should do it anyway ?
What sort of followers of Christ are we if we are constantly looking for ways to push the envelope ?

What makes you say probably? Personal opinion, or? And I think it's more "How" something is touched, not "what." Otherwise OBGYNs are all going to hell. Contrastingly, as stated above... there are ways you can touch non-private parts to "interesting" effect. ... then again "how" is subjective.

Thats a very nice try, but there is a HUGE difference between a DOCTOR performing a medical procedure and an unmarried man getting his jollies in some perverted sex scenario.
Do we really need to go there to figure this one out ?

 

[Crazy Liz]

The Hebrew means 'to woman' which would be understood as 'to wife'.
Its the same way the Greek an Hebrew BOTH work from what Ive seen.. a mans 'woman' is his wife.
God didnt tell Sarah to do what she did...SHE made the decision to rush the game.
Can you show me where NOT waiting for GOD to do what He said He would do was the 'right' thing to do ?
How would Abes line have ended ?
Do you believe that God might not have kept His word that Sarah would have a child ?
Sarah acted from UNbelief and doubt.
That is rarely a good thing in scripture.

I've noticed you tend to be a stickler for some of the details of scripture, so I thought you might want to examine the text of Genesis more carefully. God never promised that Sarah would have a son until AFTER Ishmael was a teenager.

God promised to make a great nation of Abraham, but made no promise about Sarah until a year before Isaac was born.

And what was the next thing Abraham did after God told them this? He moved to a new place where she would be taken by Abimelech. It looks to me like both of them were trying to "help" God along in fulfilling these promises.

 

[The Gregorian]

God didnt tell Sarah to do what she did...SHE made the decision to rush the game.
Can you show me where NOT waiting for GOD to do what He said He would do was the 'right' thing to do ?

Or, maybe what she did was a necessary step. Maybe an important part for isaac to turn out the way he did was ishmael. Maybe he needed an older brother first. Don't you think God knew it was going to happen, and maybe he was planning on it?

It COULD have been a lesson that we need to be patient and wait for God's timing... but it COULD have been part of God's plan for ishmael to be born so that we can learn the lessons from the stories those two became a part of. God likes to teach lessons where he promises something and JUST when you think you're giving up, he ends up coming through. I'm pretty sure he thinks it's funny.

WE are the ones who cannot keep our genitalia in our pants so we distort the lines in an attempt to remove our own guilt.

How do you know God wants that? He made us with our genitalia not covered in pants... it was only when we became sinful that we decided to hide it! Therefore pants are a product of SIN!

Personally Id take being forced to marry her simply as showing that it is wrong to have sex outside marriage when compared with all the rest of scripture.

No... not being forced to... If you're engaged... you plan on marrying someone. You will be getting married in a matter of time. Is premarital sex OK as long as you follow through and marry them?

What sort of followers of Christ are we if we are constantly looking for ways to push the envelope ?

Aye, but what sort of followers of Christ are we if we don't try to understand the envelope we are within?

You don't need to push it, but it's good to understand it.

Thats a very nice try, but there is a HUGE difference between a DOCTOR performing a medical procedure and an unmarried man getting his jollies in some perverted sex scenario.
Do we really need to go there to figure this one out ?

I'm not suggesting a "perverted sex scenario." I'm talking about a loving physical display of affection... like a hug... but more personal. Are hugs perverted because they feel nice?

Is a back rub OK as long as the person doesn't like it? But does it become wrong if it's pleasurable?

The purpose of this discussion isn't to push the envelope... but to test our own conscience. It's said that God wrote the law into our hearts, and is good to see how our hearts fall in line with God's teachings.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Besides... by my understanding, God didn't fertilize mary, he just sort of put Jesus in there. Jesus isn't "half God, half mary... I'm not entirely sure he had any of mary's DNA... I think his zygote form was just kinda stuck in there and mary was the surrogate mother...

Are you a Nestorian?

 

[Crazy Liz]

</topic>

Or, maybe what she did was a necessary step. Maybe an important part for isaac to turn out the way he did was ishmael. Maybe he needed an older brother first. Don't you think God knew it was going to happen, and maybe he was planning on it?

It COULD have been a lesson that we need to be patient and wait for God's timing... but it COULD have been part of God's plan for ishmael to be born so that we can learn the lessons from the stories those two became a part of. God likes to teach lessons where he promises something and JUST when you think you're giving up, he ends up coming through. I'm pretty sure he thinks it's funny.

This is something I've thought about a lot. The typology of Isaac the sacrifice casts Ishmael in the type of the scapegoat. I find this possibility quite fascinating when considering the relations of Jews, Christians and Muslims in our time.

<topic>

 

[HuntingMan]

I've noticed you tend to be a stickler for some of the details of scripture, so I thought you might want to examine the text of Genesis more carefully. God never promised that Sarah would have a son until AFTER Ishmael was a teenager.

It does appear that my details were off by a chapter or so there, Liz
Thankfully, I can always count on you to be lurking about looking for some error to correct

 

[HuntingMan]

Or, maybe what she did was a necessary step. Maybe an important part for isaac to turn out the way he did was ishmael. Maybe he needed an older brother first. Don't you think God knew it was going to happen, and maybe he was planning on it?

Apparently I need to reread Genesis yet once more and this time make sure Im taking notes on specific issues of timing.
This particular point doesnt usually come up in anything I keep studied up on so I should have made sure I knew the timing of the details before commenting

How do you know God wants that? He made us with our genitalia not covered in pants... it was only when we became sinful that we decided to hide it! Therefore pants are a product of SIN!

And this has what to do with where Gods word overall shows sex as being made for ?

No... not being forced to... If you're engaged... you plan on marrying someone. You will be getting married in a matter of time. Is premarital sex OK as long as you follow through and marry them?

This is one where I really dont see that its a good idea.
What does Paul say on the matter?

1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
​

and yes, before someone brings it up, this IS to widow(er)s but I hardly think the rules are different based on whether one has a dead spouse or they are simply never married.
If we cannot contain, we need to marry....Tho here again my definition of 'married' is not the same as many other Christians. I dont believe a license or a ceremony make a marriage but a sincere covenant before God does.

Aye, but what sort of followers of Christ are we if we don't try to understand the envelope we are within?

And if we dont ?
Shouldnt we play it safe if we are so unsure of where the lines actually are ?

I'm not suggesting a "perverted sex scenario." I'm talking about a loving physical display of affection... like a hug... but more personal. Are hugs perverted because they feel nice?

The more I think about it, the more Im starting to wonder about whether too much physical contact in that 'way' is appropriate before marriage.

Hugs are something we do with our mother. Fondling is not (at least I hope not ).

Is a back rub OK as long as the person doesn't like it? But does it become wrong if it's pleasurable?

I think I mentioned before that I really cant say much about the massage thing.
Listen, were both adults here, I assume, we BOTH know when one or both persons are thinking about MORE than the massage.
When it gets to that stage, I personally feel that its inappropriate if they arent married based on scripture as a whole concerning marriage.

The purpose of this discussion isn't to push the envelope... but to test our own conscience. It's said that God wrote the law into our hearts, and is good to see how our hearts fall in line with God's teachings.

Well then, how about this.
*MY* conscience says the moment I even remotely have an inkling of a sexual thought during a backrub by a woman not my lawful wife I am treading very thin ice as far as what is appropriate goes.

 

[Crazy Liz]

It does appear that my details were off by a chapter or so there, Liz
Thankfully, I can always count on you to be lurking about looking for some error to correct

Actually, family law and family irregularities in the Bible are areas I have studied pretty closely because I've dealt with a lot more kinds of family irregularities than just divorce and remarriage.

Upon studying the narratives of the patriarchs more closely, I've been quite surprised at the lack of biblical basis for some of the traditional understandings.