Fornication definition

[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

My understanding has always been that BEFORE Hagar was given to Abraham as wife that God HAD said something to Abraham that let him know that He would have offspring.

I couldnt remember where I had gotten that impression and just ran with Liz's hasty correction of my mistake, so I wanted to check and see why on earth Id have missed this huge point here.

Turns out that in Genesis 15, before the Hagar incident in Genesis 16, God DOES tell Abram about his 'seed'.

And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
(Gen 15:13 KJV)

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
(Gen 15:18 KJV)

​

So Liz, it is very clear that Sarah DID push the issue by giving him Hagar.
If Abraham (as Abram) had no children, how could God give his 'seed' land ???
I havent been thru Genesis in quite some time, so I should have rechecked my details just before posting, but the fact is that there WAS a reason for Abraham and Sarah to believe that he would have children and Sarah DID try to force the issue by making it so Abraham would have 'seed'.

 

[Crazy Liz]

My understanding has always been that BEFORE Hagar was given to Abraham as wife that God HAD said something to Abraham that let him know that He would have offspring.

I couldnt remember where I had gotten that impression and just ran with Liz's hasty correction of my mistake, so I wanted to check and see why on earth Id have missed this huge point here.

Turns out that in Genesis 15, before the Hagar incident in Genesis 16, God DOES tell Abram about his 'seed'.

And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
(Gen 15:13 KJV)

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
(Gen 15:18 KJV)

​

So Liz, it is very clear that Sarah DID push the issue by giving him Hagar.
If Abraham (as Abram) had no children, how could God give his 'seed' land if he had no children ???
I havent been thru Genesis in quite some time, so I should have rechecked my details just before posting, but the fact is that there WAS a reason for Abraham and Sarah to believe that he would have children and Sarah DID try to force the issue.

Exactly. God had made the promise to Abraham many years before, but never said Sarah would have a child until a year before Isaac was born.

 

[HuntingMan]

Exactly. God had made the promise to Abraham many years before, but never said Sarah would have a child until a year before Isaac was born.

And MY point was that Sarah was trying to RUSH the issue by giving Abraham her handmaid. Abe apparently went along for the ride.

Lets at least keep on the point here if youre going to correct me

 

[Joykins]

So... if a couple are dating... they plan to marry, and engage in "non-intercourse sexual activity" ... are they committing a sin?

No. But they should get married.

"Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial." If you want to go the route that pre-marital sex is permissible, you need to figure out in each case whether it is beneficial. Do you truly love the other person? Do you care about them more than yourself? Are you committed to them? Are you acting with respect and honor, in regards to their present and future. Are you beneficial to them in this way? Are they OK with it too? By the time you are done thinking this through you will be married for several years.

 

[Armistead]

No. But they should get married.

"Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial." If you want to go the route that pre-marital sex is permissible, you need to figure out in each case whether it is beneficial. Do you truly love the other person? Do you care about them more than yourself? Are you committed to them? Are you acting with respect and honor, in regards to their present and future. Are you beneficial to them in this way? Are they OK with it too? By the time you are done thinking this through you will be married for several years.

One act of stupidity doesn't deserve another. The majority of christians that divorce state one obvious truth. They got married long before they were ready because they were or wanted to have sex. Another fact, over 90% of Christians have pre-marital sex, but a larger number go on to marry, but not by much.

I attended a fundie church when I was a teen. We had about 5 young couples coming out of high school. They all rushed into marriage right out of school, my brother being one of them. Most of them had kids the first year, but within 5 years all of them were divorced. I still know four of them today. Most are on their second or third marriage.

No one should get married on the basis that they had sex or that they want to have sex....considering how painful divorce is.

 

[Joykins]

One act of stupidity doesn't deserve another. The majority of christians that divorce state one obvious truth. They got married long before they were ready because they were or wanted to have sex. Another fact, over 90% of Christians have pre-marital sex, but a larger number go on to marry, but not by much.

I attended a fundie church when I was a teen. We had about 5 young couples coming out of high school. They all rushed into marriage right out of school, my brother being one of them. Most of them had kids the first year, but within 5 years all of them were divorced. I still know four of them today. Most are on their second or third marriage.

No one should get married on the basis that they had sex or that they want to have sex....considering how painful divorce is.

I don't disagree with you there. The scenario I was answering, however, concerned a couple that had already planned to marry.

 

[HuntingMan]

One act of stupidity doesn't deserve another. The majority of christians that divorce state one obvious truth. They got married long before they were ready because they were or wanted to have sex. Another fact, over 90% of Christians have pre-marital sex, but a larger number go on to marry, but not by much.

I attended a fundie church when I was a teen. We had about 5 young couples coming out of high school. They all rushed into marriage right out of school, my brother being one of them. Most of them had kids the first year, but within 5 years all of them were divorced. I still know four of them today. Most are on their second or third marriage.

No one should get married on the basis that they had sex or that they want to have sex....considering how painful divorce is.

Very true.
And we should be abstaining from sex UNTIL we are lawfully married as well

 

[Crazy Liz]

Very true.
And we should be abstaining from sex UNTIL we are lawfully married as well

Interesting.

I thought in soe of your previous posts you thought people should only abstain until they made a commitment to each other before God, and being lawfully married didn't matter much to you. In fact IIRC you recently advocated a separation of religious marriage from lawful marriage.

 

[HuntingMan]

Interesting.

I thought in soe of your previous posts you thought people should only abstain until they made a commitment to each other before God, and being lawfully married didn't matter much to you.

Nice try Liz....Im betting that you probably know that I mean lawfully before God

In fact IIRC you recently advocated a separation of religious marriage from lawful marriage.

Post quotes please.
I want to SEE the context of my words for myself
Im betting I simply presented that I dont acknowledge Ceasars 'right' to allow or disallow marriages before God, or something to that effect

How about losing the obsession with me and my posts ?

.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Nice try Liz....Im betting that you probably know that I mean lawfully before God

Actually, no. I'm not sure whether you think humans are under the Law at this point in time.

To me, and I think to most modern Christians, "lawfully" means lawfully under the laws that govern us - the civil laws.

Post quotes please.
I want to SEE the context of my words for myself
Im betting I simply presented that I dont acknowledge Ceasars 'right' to allow or disallow marriages before God, or something to that effect

Don't need to post quotes. Your recollection matches mine.

How about losing the obsession with me and my posts ?

.

Obsession?

I think you give yourself too much credit.

Maybe you're just not the only person here with an interest in this topic and a lot of time on your hands.

 

[HuntingMan]

Actually, no. I'm not sure whether you think humans are under the Law at this point in time.

To me, and I think to most modern Christians, "lawfully" means lawfully under the laws that govern us - the civil laws.

Im not you nor am I most 'modern' christians.

Ive made my view clear enough in these forums...clear enough that you know full well what that view is based on your posts.
I think we are done here.

 

[The Gregorian]

Are you a Nestorian?

eh... no? I'm just not entirely sure that Jesus is "part mary." I believe that, as angels can come to earth in different forms, I believe Jesus was simply incarnated on earth... if he'd come to earth in the form of an adult, we wouldn't know him to be sinless. Plus, if he came in the form of an adult, people could easily say that he was only sinless because he didn't have to go through childhood or puberty. Because Jesus had to lead a whole human life, he had to go through all the stages, and be observed the whole time.

I don't believe Jesus was two places at once... I do believe he was in heaven as a spiritual being before he came to earth. I believe he died via torture (on a cross or stake, the method doesn't matter), was dead three days, and was resurrected back to his spiritual form.

It wouldn't break my heart to find out Jesus had Mary's DNA... it just seems to complicate the situation... but I could easily be wrong.

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 ).

Our mothers also breastfeed us when we're infants. So is a similar action acceptable before marriage?

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.

But I'm not talking about a massage in order to seduce someone into sex. JUST The massage. A massage can still be quite pleasurable.

If I'm engaged to a girl, and keep myself completely covered... and intend on keeping covered, and she knows I'm going to keep completely covered... can a "very loving" massage be immoral (with intercourse being completely out of the question)?

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.

That's actually a great answer! ... but a disappointing end to the discussion

 

[The Gregorian]

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.

Nontraditional understandings!? I'm interested! You should make a thread and send me a link and share!

Turns out that in Genesis 15, before the Hagar incident in Genesis 16, God DOES tell Abram about his 'seed'.

And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
(Gen 15:13 KJV)

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
(Gen 15:18 KJV)

​

So Liz, it is very clear that Sarah DID push the issue by giving him Hagar.
If Abraham (as Abram) had no children, how could God give his 'seed' land ???
I havent been thru Genesis in quite some time, so I should have rechecked my details just before posting, but the fact is that there WAS a reason for Abraham and Sarah to believe that he would have children and Sarah DID try to force the issue by making it so Abraham would have 'seed'.

It says that it'll eventually happen... says nothing about Sarah. Sarah may not have even known about it.

"Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial." If you want to go the route that pre-marital sex is permissible, you need to figure out in each case whether it is beneficial. Do you truly love the other person? Do you care about them more than yourself? Are you committed to them? Are you acting with respect and honor, in regards to their present and future. Are you beneficial to them in this way? Are they OK with it too? By the time you are done thinking this through you will be married for several years.

Wonderful answer!

One act of stupidity doesn't deserve another. The majority of christians that divorce state one obvious truth. They got married long before they were ready because they were or wanted to have sex. Another fact, over 90% of Christians have pre-marital sex, but a larger number go on to marry, but not by much.

I attended a fundie church when I was a teen. We had about 5 young couples coming out of high school. They all rushed into marriage right out of school, my brother being one of them. Most of them had kids the first year, but within 5 years all of them were divorced. I still know four of them today. Most are on their second or third marriage.

No one should get married on the basis that they had sex or that they want to have sex....considering how painful divorce is.

Another good point!

You should never marry so that you can have sex... but if you wouldn't be willing to spend the rest of your life with them, you shouldn't be having sex with them.

... But, that doesn't necessarily mean all forms of affection. I.e. I don't think it's sinful to kiss someone you're dating before being "sure" you'd be willing to marry them.

The point is "premarital sex isn't necessarily sinful" ... but sex with no intention or interest in marriage... is. If you're not willing to spend the rest of your life with someone, you shouldn't be having sex with them and potentially make babies. That much, I definitely agree with... using someone for carnal needs with no emotional attachment is VERY mean, and therefore, I believe is sinful. But I think affection is acceptable based on your commitment to that person. Hopefully it's reciprocated.

 

[HuntingMan]

Our mothers also breastfeed us when we're infants. So is a similar action acceptable before marriage?

Breastfeeding is fondling now ?

But I'm not talking about a massage in order to seduce someone into sex. JUST The massage. A massage can still be quite pleasurable.

If I were to get a message from someone not my wife the moment I even had an innappropriate thought the massage would be over. To continue would be 'sin' if I were to continue having those thoughts.

If I could get a message without having something cross my mind, I suppose it wouldnt be wrong.
Ive never had one, but personally I just dont see how a man could have an attractive woman doing that without having something pop into his mind at some point.
Id never say anyone was lying if they said that it never happens, but I would be quite suspicious (just being honest about my own thoughts in the matter here).

If I'm engaged to a girl, and keep myself completely covered... and intend on keeping covered, and she knows I'm going to keep completely covered... can a "very loving" massage be immoral (with intercourse being completely out of the question)?

Well, my view of "engagement" is a bit more binding than what most folks is, so Im not entirely sure I would be overly distressed about it UNLESS your version of 'engaged' is something to the extent of 'maybe Ill marry you, maybe I wont"

 

[HuntingMan]

Our mothers also breastfeed us when we're infants. So is a similar action acceptable before marriage?

Breastfeeding is fondling now ?
Your date is not your mother and hopefully if you are considering marriage you are not still feeding from your mothers breast

But I'm not talking about a massage in order to seduce someone into sex. JUST The massage. A massage can still be quite pleasurable.

If I were to get a massage from someone not my wife the moment I even had an inappropriate thought the massage would be over. To continue would be 'sin' if I were to continue having those thoughts.

If I could get a message without having something cross my mind, I suppose it wouldnt be wrong.
Ive never had one, but personally I just dont see how a man could have an attractive woman doing that without having something pop into his mind at some point.
Id never say anyone was lying if they said that it never happens, but I would be quite suspicious (just being honest about my own thoughts in the matter here).

If I'm engaged to a girl, and keep myself completely covered... and intend on keeping covered, and she knows I'm going to keep completely covered... can a "very loving" massage be immoral (with intercourse being completely out of the question)?

Well, my view of "engagement" is a bit more binding than what most folks is, so Im not entirely sure I would be overly distressed about it UNLESS your version of 'engaged' is something to the extent of 'maybe Ill marry you, maybe I wont"

 

[Crazy Liz]

Nontraditional understandings!? I'm interested! You should make a thread and send me a link and share!

I've posted various things in various threads. You might try using the Advanced search to find threads about Isaac and Ishmael.

If you want to carry this tangent into a new thread with any specific issues, feel free. I've described or hinted at most of the main issues WRT Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Ishmael in this thread. Some of it was recently discussed in this thread, which is still open.

 

[Bootstrap]

If I could get a message without having something cross my mind, I suppose it wouldnt be wrong.
Ive never had one, but personally I just dont see how a man could have an attractive woman doing that without having something pop into his mind at some point.
Id never say anyone was lying if they said that it never happens, but I would be quite suspicious (just being honest about my own thoughts in the matter here).

You know, I got to about 1/2 way toward certification in massage, and for many years I gave massages and exchanged massages with people of both genders, and it really was quite innocent. But I think that's more likely for someone with the right training who is part of the massage culture. And I haven't been in that culture for many, many years, I don't know that it would be that way now.

Jonathan

 

[The Gregorian]

Breastfeeding is fondling now ?

Oh come on, put your mind in the gutter!

 

[chingchang]

God said what we can not do sexually...it is in His Word. Everything we can think of outside of what he has legislated against...we are free to enjoy if we choose. If you look up the original greek word that is translated to "fornication"...it is a generic word meaning "illicit sex". In other words...what ever sex act that is forbid by God fits within the definition of the greek word that is translated to our "fornication". God has not legislated against premarital sex...so it can not be included in "fornication"...contrary to what the modern Church preaches. The "heros of the faith"...such as King David had sex with slaves and concubines who they were not married to. Not one word of condemnation or removal of blessings by God. King David screwed up when he committed adultery with Bathsheba (a married woman)...thereby making Bathsheba an adulteress and violating her husband's property rights to her. To top it off...King David had him killed. Be sure that sin didn't enter the picture with King David until he committed adultery with Bathsheba...no sin when he was having sex with his slaves and concubines and multiple wives. Keep in mind that God does not change....

So...if you think premarital sex is a sin...show me where it says that in scripture!

In Christ,
chingchang

 

[HuntingMan]

So...if you think premarital sex is a sin...show me where it says that in scripture!

This is about as silly as saying 'if you believe in the trinity, show me where it says trinity in scripture! "
Thats NOT how it works, Im afraid.
We look at how God created things....at context from the WHOLE word of God, the 'evidence' as it were...to see where sex is designed for.
Evidence doesnt always say plainly 'this guy didnt do it'. No, it is compiled and examined to determine what it says as a whole.

Its entirely naive to believe that EVERY possible 'sin' is listed in scripture.
The bible would be the size of a Library if it were intended to list EVERY conceivable wrong a man could commit.

The CONTEXT from the WHOLE word of God shows quite conclusively that sex was created for a man and woman to share ONLY when they have committed themselves to one another as husband and wife for a lifetime.