you don't understand how a couple could claim to be "married in gods eyes" as an excuse to have sex without truly being ready to commit?
Then explain to me how non Christians have small weddings with not much food and only a handful of people and have it perfectly acceptable by society's standards.Legal marriage is an expectation placed on us by society, having a whtie wedding with lots of people and lots of food. Its a worldy tradition.
Where? And by the way, if what you're saying is true, then how come even non Christians view premarital sex with some disdain? How come we have such terms like 'illegitimate child'? How come the other word with that meaning is an insult? Even from a secular pov it's not a good idea because of the breakup rate.Marriage in the eyes of God is two peopel who loev ea ch other coming to gether as one. It actually states that.
Oh, I've no doubt it happens - I just doubt it happens enough for you to justify your statement, "I could totally see a couple claiming to be committed to each other("married in the eyes of god") simply because of lust for sex."
Apart from anything else, I'd love to know what you mean by "lust for sex".
David.
???
I don't see the difference in my first and second statement
and I also don't believe you don't understand what lust for sex is
???
and I also don't believe you don't understand what lust for sex is
You're almost 40 and have never experienced lust for sex?I don't, no. It's certainly not something I experience.
David.
You're almost 40 and have never experienced lust for sex?
Pastor Roger said:Hello Homie,
Here's a quote of scripture from one of your own previous posts on this forum.
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
This verse, 1Co 7:2, couldn't be clearer and yes there are many other such verses. Yes, some translations use the word immorality or sexual immorality in place of fornication but it is still quite clear in what it means. Those that attempt to blur the meaning are those that simply want to give validation to their own actions. It is no different than those that claim homosexuality is not taught as sin in the Bible.
As Brother Tom said ... "this isn't an open issue with any questions." It is quite clearly taught against in the Bible if one just opens their eyes.
of course, but it shouldn't be the focal point of why you want to spend your life with someone
not if you expect it to last
You've done a survey, then?For peopel who just want sex it is, for those who want loe and a partnership it isnt.
people who say they are married in the eyes of god usually arent after sex.
Go look up the stats for those who have sex before marriage. See if they're likely to stay together.I have seen both sides, i dont think its my place to judge, only to express concern if evidence tells me its for the wrong reason.
Marriage, in the eyes of God or legally, is never fool proof.
Pastor Roger said:Hello Homie,
Here's a quote of scripture from one of your own previous posts on this forum.
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
This verse, 1Co 7:2, couldn't be clearer and yes there are many other such verses. Yes, some translations use the word immorality or sexual immorality in place of fornication but it is still quite clear in what it means. Those that attempt to blur the meaning are those that simply want to give validation to their own actions. It is no different than those that claim homosexuality is not taught as sin in the Bible.
As Brother Tom said ... "this isn't an open issue with any questions." It is quite clearly taught against in the Bible if one just opens their eyes.
Yes, this verse does imply that sex before marriage is wrong. Jesus also says that even looking upon a woman lustfully is sin, He raises the bar.
But why the impliedness of this particular sin, whereas all the other sexual sins (and others) are spelled out as wrong, not just by implication but specifically listed as sins. Nowhere in these lists (whether in the NT or OT) is pre-marital sex listed, but all the others are; being sex with animals, sex with same sex, sex with family members, and most importantly (and in the 10 commandments) adultery.
My theory: God does not consider pre-marital sex optimal, like He doesn't consider multiple wives and concubines optimal, or slavery, or divorce. But He allowed it in the OT period, He does not declare it as a sin. One of these were repealed in the NT; divorce, now specifically listed as sinful unless because of adultery. But pre-marital sex, multiple wives and slavery is still not specifically listed as sinful, although all of them are alluded to as less than optimal.
But you guys are wrong to assume that fornication means sex before marriage. It means temple prostitution, something rampant among the Greeks of the day, which is why it is warned against so many times in the epistles, because a lot of the new churches were in Greece and the Greek speaking world. The Greeks also engaged in homosexual acts, sex with boys, orgys and bought slaves for sex. I think a lot of the focus on sexual purity in the NT has to do with the rampant sexual liberty in the Greek culture of the time. According to Paul, the very most optimal state would be to abstain from sex and marriage altogether, how optimal are we to be?
Enough of this moshy love this and that debate. It is pointless and easy, I'll solve it for you guys right now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?