[Samseau]

(03-07-2016 05:45 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Samseau, I'd like to understand how you deal with St. Augustine (of Hippo)'s views on sexuality. He predates Aquinas by a good 800 years or so -- thus living in the 1st to 6th centuries, the period under consideration -- and it's well-recognised he influenced Aquinas's writings if not the beliefs of the entire church, Orthodox or Catholic.

I admit, I must read more Augustine. However, the point of reading ancient authors isn't merely to regard them as a foolproof authority, but to gather information about how languages were understood back then.

However, they often did have very interesting conclusions and are full of wisdom.

Quote:

Augustine, at least, certainly regards sex outside marriage as a sin full stop, because he regarded sex as for the procreation of children:

The Good of Marriage, St. Augustine Wrote:

Marriages also have the benefit that sensual or youthful incontinence, even though it is wrong, is redirected to the honorable purpose of having children, and so out of the evil of lust sexual union in marriage achieves something good. Furthermore, parental feeling brings about a moderation in sexual desire, since it is held back and in a certain way burns more modestly. For a kind of dignity attaches to the ardor of the pleasure, when in the act whereby man and woman come together with each other, they have the thought of being father and mother.

Sex is merely wrong to pursue in and of itself, but he admits that it can produce good things. This is consistent with Jesus's teaching,

"that ye may be sons of your Father in the heavens, because His sun He doth cause to rise on evil and good, and He doth send rain on righteous and unrighteous." (Matt: 5:45)

Yet, I would attack Augustine here by claiming that two married people desiring each other as "lust" is excessive. I would call it love, and sex is the natural expression of that love. I think the line between love and lust is crossed when sex is the end goal and not the relationship, and if Augustine were to deny that then he would be in direct contradiction with the Apostle Paul who said that sex in marriage is love. So if it comes between Augustine and Paul, I must go with Paul.

Quote:

On Marriage and Concupiscence, St. Augustine, Book I, Chapter 16 Wrote:

But in the married, as these things are desirable and praiseworthy, so the others are to be tolerated, that no lapse occur into damnable sins; that is, into fornications and adulteries. To escape this evil, even such embraces of husband and wife as have not procreation for their object, but serve an overbearing concupiscence, are permitted, so far as to be within range of forgiveness, though not prescribed by way of commandment: and the married pair are enjoined not to defraud one the other, lest Satan should tempt them by reason of their incontinence. For thus says the Scripture: "Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." Now in a case where permission must be given, it cannot by any means be contended that there is not some amount of sin. Since, however, the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh - and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage.

Concupiscence to Augustine in essence is the pleasure of lust, the need to bang in essence. He well understood it. And Augustine was even tougher on sex than Aquinas: he believed that any sex other than for procreation was at least a venial sin, if not mortal. Sex inside marriage for pleasure only was, maybe, tolerable to him.

First, fornications and adulteries = whoring and cheating on your spouse. I have no disagreements and that is what the Bible says.

Second, I have never said sex for it's own sake was moral. So I have no idea why you, or anyone else in this thread, keeps bringing it up. You guys are beating a straw man. My first conclusion in this thread is that sex for it's own sake with a single woman is just like enjoying any other wordly goods, such as a big meal or a rich estate. It's sinful but no more sinful than any other worldly desire.

Quote:

Quote:

And Augustine writes pretty frankly of his various sexual escapades prior to converting to Christianity later in life; Augustine had a bastard child, Adeotatus, before converting over. He doesn't make much mention of fucking prostitutes in particular, he seems to have been banging sluts given the content of Confessions.

Asserting concupiscence to be a natural and good thing was an element of the Pelagian Heresy. Not saying that's what you're running here, but it's a reason Augustine went into detail on the subject:

[quote]On Marriage and Concupiscence, Chapter 40: Wrote:

In respect, however, to this concupiscence of the flesh, we have striven in this lengthy discussion to distinguish it accurately from the goods of marriage. This we have done on account of our modern heretics, who cavil whenever concupiscence is censured, as if it involved a censure of marriage. Their object is to praise concupiscence as a natural good, that so they may defend their own baneful dogma, which asserts that those who are born by its means do not contract original sin. Now the blessed Ambrose, bishop of Milan, by whose priestly office I received the washing of regeneration, briefly spoke on this matter, when, expounding the prophet Isaiah, he gathered from him the nativity of Christ in the flesh: "Thus," says the bishop, "He was both tempted in all points as a man, Hebrews 4:15 and in the likeness of man He bare all things; but inasmuch as He was born of the Spirit, He kept Himself from sin. For every man is a liar; and there is none without sin but God alone. It has, therefore, been ever firmly maintained, that it is clear that no man from husband and wife, that is to say, by means of that conjunction of their persons, is free from sin. He who is free from sin is also free from conception of this kind." Well now, what is it which St. Ambrose has here condemned in the true doctrine of this deliverance?— is it the goodness of marriage, or not rather the worthless opinion of these heretics, although they had not then come upon the stage? I have thought it worth while to adduce this testimony, because Pelagius mentions Ambrose with such commendation as to say: "The blessed Bishop Ambrose, in whose writings more than anywhere else the Roman faith is clearly stated, has flourished like a beautiful flower among the Latin writers. His fidelity and extremely pure perception of the sense of Scripture no opponent even has ever ventured to impugn." I hope he may regret having entertained opinions opposed to Ambrose, but not that he has bestowed this praise on that holy man.

I find no disagreements here. I've never asserted once in this thread that sex for it's own sake was not sinful, but that it's not a mortal 10 commandment sin but instead falls under the spiritual sins that lead to mortal sins such as excessive eating, abusive language, etc. etc. I'm reducing the status of sex for it's own sake as a sin but not eliminating it altogether, and I do not think sexing a woman whom is not a virgin and the man is considering as a wife someday is sinful either. And these thoughts do not contradict even with Augustine is saying.

For if marriage is the end goal, and you're living in a world without virgins, then again, it is foolish to marry a woman who has already been had in common with other men without making sure she is loyal to you. Therefore sex towards the goal of marriage is a necessary yet unfortunate circumstance brought about by our sinful times, and would never be necessary in a world where women's virginity was still given it's proper value.

It's like saying violence is sinful, therefore we should never hurt anyone even if they go to war with us. Likewise, sex by itself is sinful, but if war has been waged upon the virginity of women and the conception of families it makes no sense to say sex cannot be used as a weapon to create families.

Quote:

EDIT: I checked back through the thread to see if there was any mention of Augustine's view. I did find one -- a short reference to the suggestion that Augustine thought of sex similarly to food. Respectfully, this does not seem to at all represent how Augustine thought about sex, either in or out of marriage, on Confessions or any of his documents celebrating marriage in general. He regarded sex not as evil, but only Biblically justified in certain circumstances, so I think it does behoove you to address this issue. I think it's not Aquinas you have to contend with, it's half of Augustine's back catalogue and whether he got the translation entirely wrong -- bearing in mind he knew Latin and Greek (as we know from Confessions) and was living eight centuries closer to Christ than Aquinas was.

I want to read his stuff in greater detail this year, but again as I noted above his insistence that all sex is lust, even within the confines of marriage, is in direct confrontation with the teachings of Paul, and therefore there is much to be suspect in his writings here.

[SanFranciscoMack]

I'm questioning the churches more and more lately...But not God. I grew up a Christian but stop believing for a few years. Now I consider myself a Christian again and it's interesting to see that the Bible could have been mistranslated and misinterpreted for centuries.

So, God does allow men to have harems.

[EDantes]

As far as I'm aware of, the Bible never mentions it per se, but if a man had sex with an unmarried woman in the OT he was obligated to marry her and pay her father a dowry.

In the NT Paul mentions "fornication", other than that it isn't mentioned specifically.

My thought is that "sex before marriage" wasn't exclusively forbidden per se; I believe the sin it was trying to hint at was along the lines of "pumping and dumping" - sleeping with a woman but not providing for her and/or any pregnancy which resulted.

In Bible times patriarchal lineage and a husband knowing who the real father of his kids was was very culturally important; hence if a man took a woman's virginity but didn't marry her it it was viewed as dishonoring her father since she would no longer be desirable as marriage material. Similar to renting a car, getting in a fender bender, and then returning it without paying for the damage caused.

-----

Today these views seem pretty incompatible with the current landscape; seeing as most women don't have a sense of "obligation" to her family to remain a virgin, nor any shortage of chumps still willing to hook up with or marry her and pay for the baby daddy's spawn out of their own pocket; not to mention women being able to support themselves today without the aid of a provider husband (often courtesy of big daddy govt).

So it's an example of traditionalism not keeping up with the times.

-----

(Interestingly some of the more extreme anti-sexual attitudes found in Christianity today may actually have their root more in Gnosticism or Platonism which apparently had an influence on the early church - Nietzche calling Christianity "Platonism for the people".)

I'm not an expert on Gnosticism but the big 'jist' of it is that the material world and it's pleasures are inherently 'bad' or 'inferior' and that denying them as much as possible leads to oneness with God, making it similar to Buddhism in some respects. I've heard some say that St. Paul himself may have been connected to Gnosticism).

Quote:

So, God does allow men to have harems.

In the Bible era God never forbid polygamy; I believe it was the early Catholic Church which actually instituted monogamy.

Interestingly I heard it was partly done to ensure more 'equal distribution of women' and prevent the highest status men from taking all of the women, so this makes it quite controversial as it sounds almost like a sexual "affirmative action".

[fellowhuntsman]

Just a quick thought. I'm not sure that the modern day definition of adultery is the biblical definition. In my reading, the biblical definition is always fucking another man's wife. Being married and fucking other unpaid, unattached women is NEVER condemned. If it was, EVERY patriarch would have been condemned as an adulterer. David didn't get in trouble until he stole someone else's wife AND murdered her husband to hide it. Furthermore, lots of guys point to Jesus saying that if you lust after another woman then you commit adultery. However, in the NT two words are used for females woman and virgin. Ostensibly woman here is a married woman. Thus, I'm not sure that you can really use that in application of adultery. In terms of the OT, there are fines and penalties for raping betrothed chicks. For raping non-betrothed chicks you just have to marry her. For banging an unmarried woman STILL living in her father's house the penalty was against the girl and not against the man. Furthermore, I think that this should be mapped under the honor your father and your mother commandment and not under the adultery and covetousness commandments. This is all distinct from what is preached as ideal in the bible. On the other hand for leadership posts in the NT Church one man, one woman for marriage and family raising is required for leadership, although oddly enough not for salvation.

[Brendan]

What of Matthew 5:28?

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

That verse means looking at anyone but your wife lustfully is committing adultery, a huge sin in Christianity, let alone engaging in pre-marital sex. I'm a Christian myself and when it comes to sex, this verse always comes to mind.

[RexImperator]

Quote:

Interestingly I heard it was partly done to ensure more 'equal distribution of women' and prevent the highest status men from taking all of the women, so this makes it quite controversial as it sounds almost like a sexual "affirmative action".

Some might call patriarchy plus monogamy a sort of "vagina socialism".

[johhny]

(07-05-2016 04:03 AM)Brendan Wrote:  

What of Matthew 5:28?

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

That verse means looking at anyone but your wife lustfully is committing adultery, a huge sin in Christianity, let alone engaging in pre-marital sex. I'm a Christian myself and when it comes to sex, this verse always comes to mind.

You cant commit adultery looking at or having sex with a woman that is not married. So this verse in my opinion, all though I might be mistaken, has nothing to with pre-martial sex.

[debeguiled]

(07-05-2016 12:19 PM)johhny Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 04:03 AM)Brendan Wrote:  

What of Matthew 5:28?

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

That verse means looking at anyone but your wife lustfully is committing adultery, a huge sin in Christianity, let alone engaging in pre-marital sex. I'm a Christian myself and when it comes to sex, this verse always comes to mind.

You cant commit adultery looking at or having sex with a woman that is not married. So this verse in my opinion, all though I might be mistaken, has nothing to with pre-martial sex.

Sometimes God expects you to connect the dots all by yourself.

[johhny]

In the Bible the consequences for having pre-martial sex with a virgin are clearly written:

You must marry the girl afterwards or if the father doesnt agree, you must pay a certain amount to him for taking the girls virginity. Thats it.

However, nowhere in the Bible are written the consequences for having sex with a girl that is not a virgin.

Why is that so? I believe because its simply not a sin. There are dozens of other sexual sins listed in the Bible but no mention of pre-martial sex, even though pre-martial sex clearly existed in the biblical times since prostitutes existed and since pre-martial sex with a virgin is mentioned.

Again, I might be mistaken.

[N°6]

(07-05-2016 02:12 PM)johhny Wrote:  

In the Bible the consequences for having pre-martial sex with a virgin are clearly written:

You must marry the girl afterwards or if the father doesnt agree, you must pay a certain amount to him for taking the girls virginity. Thats it.

However, nowhere in the Bible are written the consequences for having sex with a girl that is not a virgin.

Why is that so? I believe because its simply not a sin. There are dozens of other sexual sins listed in the Bible but no mention of pre-martial sex, even though pre-martial sex clearly existed in the biblical times since prostitutes existed and since pre-martial sex with a virgin is mentioned.

Again, I might be mistaken.

It was a common belief in the European and Middle Eastern world of antiquity that it was impossible to rape a harlot because she had no virtue or masculine governance to rape.

The exact same abusive act forced onto a man's daughter or wife is what constituted rape in the ancient world. If a woman was associated with 'porn' i.e. the ancient Greek word that describes the lowest of the low of feral female sexuality, there was nothing to rape. In fact, she was often the blame. The catamite being the feminine and passive male was often blamed for homosexual deviance - not the active male.

This is why Muslim men in England and Germany rape ungoverned young women, it protects the virginities of young Muslim women still under the governorship of their fathers.

A non-practicing Muslim woman first explained to me why 'lower class' English women are raped by Muslims a decade before Rotherham went mainstream.

Is anyone interested in a strictly non-denominational manosphere/ Red Pill Bible study thread?

[SigmundSauer]

Hey guys, I was reading Corinthians in conjunction with some of the works of the Apostolic Fathers, and while the Bible says porneías(πορνείας) in 1 Corinthians 7:2 like Samseau says:
(διὰ δὲ τὰς πορνείας ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω, καὶ ἑκάστη τὸν ἴδιον ἄνδρα ἐχέτω.),

in St Polycarp's(69-155, disciple of Apostle John) epistle to the Phillipians, dated about 120 AD, he clearly states that fornication is forbidden, using the word pórnoi(πόρνοι) in his koine greek work and exhorting young men to stay pure.
(ὁμοίως καὶ νεώτεροι ἄμεμπτοι ἐν πᾶσιν, πρὸ παντὸς προνοοῦντες ἁγνείας καὶ χαλιναγωγοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, ὅτι πᾶσα ἐπιθυμία κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος στρατεύεται, καὶ οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν, οὔτε οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰ ἄτοπα. διό δέον ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ πάντων τούτων, ὑποτασσομένους τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις καὶ διακόνοις ὡς θεῷ καὶ Χριστῷ· τὰς παρθένους ἐν ἀμώμῳ καὶ ἁγνῇ συνειδήσει περιπατεῖν.) which is translated as
(In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since “every lust warreth against the spirit; “ and “neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God,” nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming. Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ. The virgins also must walk in a blameless and pure conscience.)

In the Didache(110 AD) it also exhorts the reader not to be lustful, for it leads to fornication, foul speaking, and "uplifted eyes" and states that all these things lead to adulteries.
(τέκνον μου, μὴ γίνου ἐπιθυμητής, ὁδηγεῖ γὰρ ἡ ἐπιθυμία πρὸς τὴν πορνείαν, μηδὲ αἰσψρολόγος μηδὲ υψηλόφθαλμος· ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπαντων μοιχεῖαι γεννῶνται)
(My child, be not lustful, for lust leads unto fornication; be not a filthy talker; be not a lifter up of the eye, for from all these things come adulteries.)
It also states that lust itself(ἐπιθυμίαι) along with adulteries and fornication is a pathway to Hell.
(Ἡ δὲ τοῦ θανάτου ὁδός ἐστιν αὕτη· πρῶτονπάντων πονηρά ἐστι καὶ κατάρας μεστή· φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι,ἐπιθυμίαι, προνεῖαι, κλοπαί, εἰδωλολατρίαι, μαγεῖαι, φαρμακίαι, ἁρπαγαί, ψευδομαρτυριαι, ὑποκρίσεις, διπλοκαρδία, δόλος, ὑπερηφανία, κακία, αὐθάδεια, πλεονεξία, αἰσχρολογία, ζηλοτυπία, θρασύτης, ὕψος,
(But the path of death is this. First of all, it is evil, and full of cursing; there are found murders, adulteries, lusts, fornication, thefts, idolatries, soothsaying, sorceries, robberies, false witnessings, hypocrisies, double-mindedness, craft, pride, malice, self-will, covetousness, filthy talking, jealousy, audacity, pride, arrogance

Finally, Justin Martyr(100 AD-165 AD) stated that "promiscuous intercourse was not one of our mysteries."
Καὶ πάλιν, μὴ τῶν ἐκτεθέντων τις μὴ ἀναληφθεὶς θανατωθῇ, καὶ ὦμεν ἀνδροφόνοι· ἀλλ’ ἢ τὴν ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἐγαμοῦμεν εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ παίδων ἀνατροφῇ, ἢ παραιτούμενοι τὸ γήμασθαι τέλεον ἐνεκρατευόμεθα.
καὶ ἤδη τις τῶν ἡμετέρων, ὑπὲρ τοῦ πεῖσαι ὑμᾶς ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἡμῖν μυστήριον ἡ ἀνέδην μίξις, βιβλίδιον ἀνέδωκεν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ Φήλικι ἡγεμονεύοντι ἀξιῶν ἐπιτρέψαι ἰατρῷ τοὺς διδύμους αὐτοῦ ἀφελεῖν· ἄνευ γὰρ τῆς τοῦ ἡγεμόνος ἐπιτροπῆς τοῦτο πράττειν ἀπειρῆσθαι οἱ ἐκεῖ ἰατροὶ ἔλεγον.
καὶ μηδ’ ὅλως βουληθέντος Φήλικος ὑπογράψαι, ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ μείνας ὁ νεανίσκος ἠρκέσθη τῇ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῶν ὁμογνωμόνων συνειδήσει.
οὐκ ἄτοπον δὲ ἐπιμνησθῆναι ἐν τούτοις ἡγησάμεθα καὶ Ἀντινόου τοῦ νῦν γεγενημένου, ὃν καὶ πάντες ὡς θεὸν διὰ φόβου σέβειν ὥρμηντο, ἐπιστάμενοι τίς τε ἦν καὶ πόθεν ὑπῆρχεν.
(And again [we fear to expose children], lest some of them be not picked up, but die, and we become murderers. But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently. And that you may understand that promiscuous intercourse is not one of our mysteries, one of our number a short time ago presented to Felix the governor in Alexandria a petition, craving that permission might be given to a surgeon to make him an eunuch. For the surgeons there said that they were forbidden to do this without the permission of the governor. And when Felix absolutely refused to sign such a permission, the youth remained single, and was satisfied with his own approving conscience, and the approval of those who thought as he did. And it is not out of place, we think, to mention here Antinous, who was alive but lately, and whom all were prompt, through fear, to worship as a god, though they knew both who he was and what was his origin.)

Not concluding anything, but these are just what I found.

[RBerkley]

Trad-con Evangelists distorted the scriptures that men are supposed to be virginal, don't masturbate or even look at a woman,
While on the other hand (no pun intended), the women are free to sleep around with every Tom, Dick, Harry and 13-year-old Johnny until she decides to "marry" after riding the Carousel, in which the same virginal men who were forbidden to masturbate must "man up" and wife those women.

There are even some "tax-exempt" Churches who now allow Female Pastors to come to the stage dressed in revealing clothing, while the Male Pastors chant that looking at a woman in a lustful way, even if she is the one who is dressing provocatively, is a sin more than being a pederast homosexual gay or lesbian.

The Old Testament, in my opinion, provides more accuracy regarding sexual morals than these modernized, SJW-friendly (mis)interpretations of the Bible.

[Jean Valjean]

Samseau, I have a few questions.

(1) Is there any Scriptural support for the idea that raping a widow or an unmarried, unbetrothed, virginal girl is a sin? The Bible just says that the rapist needs to marry the girl he raped and/or pay the father the bride price for virgins. Sexual sins in the Bible are typically punishable by death, rather than by marriage. Also, even property crimes in the Bible are usually punished by some sort of disproportionate restitution, like having to pay back four sheep for one sheep stolen. Yet in the case of rape, the penalty is simply, "You break it, you bought it." So I question whether, according to the Bible, the rape of unmarried, unbetrothed girls falls into the category of sin.

(2) Does Scripture consider it sinful for a man to cheat on his wife with a widow or an unmarried, unbetrothed virgin girl? (If so, then as others have pointed out, Jacob, Solomon, and many other godly men committed a sexual sin; yet we don't see them crying out to God in regret over their sin, or God punishing them. In fact, God even gave Saul's widows to David.) Or does he just have to marry the second girl polygynously?

(3) After a man takes a girl's virginity, when does their betrothal begin? Are they considered by Scripture to be betrothed as soon as they have sex, or does the man have to first get the father's permission to marry her? This leads to my next question, which is:

(4) Is the second guy who bangs a woman an adulterer, because she is considered betrothed to the guy who took her virginity? If so, then this would mean that we CAN'T have sex with sluts as long as the guy who took her virginity is still alive; in fact, having sex with her would be an offense punishable by being stoned to death.

(5) Why does the Bible allow men to divorce their wives for adultery, while also commanding that adulterous wives are to be stoned to death? What is the point of divorcing her, if she's just going to be executed anyway?

There might almost be a loophole, in that if a girl's father refused to give her in marriage to the guy who took her virginity, then maybe you could bang her and not be required to marry her, because there's no Biblical command to do so. But that would basically be functionally equivalent to whoredom. What the Bible is trying to do, is to get men to buy women they want to have sex with, rather than merely rent them.

(To say that it's okay to fuck her for free, but sinful to fuck her if you give her a bag of Skittles afterwards, would be to make a distinction without much of a difference. It would actually be similar to the kind of argument feminists make when they say that prostitution is exploitative, but seduction isn't. Sluttiness and whoredom are both harmful in many of the same ways, though, such as by spreading STDs.)

[Ezio31]

This really should be made into an article on Kings. Hope you work on it, Samseau

[The Beast1]

(09-03-2016 09:29 AM)RaymondKertezc Wrote:  

Samseau, I have a few questions.

(1) Is there any Scriptural support for the idea that raping a widow or an unmarried, unbetrothed, virginal girl is a sin? The Bible just says that the rapist needs to marry the girl he raped and/or pay the father the bride price for virgins. Sexual sins in the Bible are typically punishable by death, rather than by marriage. Also, even property crimes in the Bible are usually punished by some sort of disproportionate restitution, like having to pay back four sheep for one sheep stolen. Yet in the case of rape, the penalty is simply, "You break it, you bought it." So I question whether, according to the Bible, the rape of unmarried, unbetrothed girls falls into the category of sin.

(2) Does Scripture consider it sinful for a man to cheat on his wife with a widow or an unmarried, unbetrothed virgin girl? (If so, then as others have pointed out, Jacob, Solomon, and many other godly men committed a sexual sin; yet we don't see them crying out to God in regret over their sin, or God punishing them. In fact, God even gave Saul's widows to David.) Or does he just have to marry the second girl polygynously?

(3) After a man takes a girl's virginity, when does their betrothal begin? Are they considered by Scripture to be betrothed as soon as they have sex, or does the man have to first get the father's permission to marry her? This leads to my next question, which is:

(4) Is the second guy who bangs a woman an adulterer, because she is considered betrothed to the guy who took her virginity? If so, then this would mean that we CAN'T have sex with sluts as long as the guy who took her virginity is still alive; in fact, having sex with her would be an offense punishable by being stoned to death.

(5) Why does the Bible allow men to divorce their wives for adultery, while also commanding that adulterous wives are to be stoned to death? What is the point of divorcing her, if she's just going to be executed anyway?

There might almost be a loophole, in that if a girl's father refused to give her in marriage to the guy who took her virginity, then maybe you could bang her and not be required to marry her, because there's no Biblical command to do so. But that would basically be functionally equivalent to whoredom. What the Bible is trying to do, is to get men to buy women they want to have sex with, rather than merely rent them.

(To say that it's okay to fuck her for free, but sinful to fuck her if you give her a bag of Skittles afterwards, would be to make a distinction without much of a difference. It would actually be similar to the kind of argument feminists make when they say that prostitution is exploitative, but seduction isn't. Sluttiness and whoredom are both harmful in many of the same ways, though, such as by spreading STDs.)

You guys have to make the distinctions between what the old testament is and what the new testament delivers. I've stated this previously that the old testament is a prophecy. Nothing more. Everything in the old testament is a message that a messiah is coming. The new testament replaces and supersedes the old laws with Jesus' teachings and the new golden rule which combines and distills every law into a simple phrase.

So with that said, you don't need to follow old Jewish marriage traditions.

Stolen from Quora which exemplifies the entire base of arguments being thrown around here:

Quote:

The golden rule suffers from certain breakdowns in logic under certain circumstances as many philosophers including, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell point out but there is actually a way to correct for this as pointed out by other philosophers.

You apply the rule to itself every time you use it.

You would not want people to impose things on you that you don't like just becuase they like it done to them so whenever you are following the Golden Rule try to make sure you are not imposing something on another that they might not enjoy done to them.

The rule itself is all about empathy in our fellow humans and if we break it down to simplified arguments that are purely of logic then the empathy can get lost in the shuffle. The rule is about trying to treat people in ways that would make them happy by thinking of how you would like them to treat you. Kant stated that the rule is insensitive to differences of situation by contrasting that a convicted man could appeal to the judge on grounds that the judge would not want to go to prison if their roles were reversed. This can be resolved however if we also accept that were the prisoner the judge it is unlikely that the prisoner would want guilty persons to be set free. Thus applying the golden rule to it's own application. Many concepts exist that cannot be properly quantified by logic alone or alternatively are logically sound but present a paradox. Reference the Raven Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav... and the Unexpected Hanging paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Une... .

The Golden Rule is an example of the important moral and ethical concepts of reciprocity and altruism. In reciprocity you are responding to a positive action with another positive action whereas in altruism you are concerning for the welfare of others regardless of receiving any benefit yourself. The golden rule marries these distinct concepts together beautifully by encouraging a person to act altruistically towards others in such ways they would like others to reciprocate towards them regardless of whether the person has treated them in such a way.

With this said, let me ask the group as a whole: Do you desire to marry a woman who is a virgin?

If so, then by sleeping with an unmarried woman you deny another man who would have married her as a virgin the opportunity to have that. If you don't care, sleep away.

Let's assume that the woman that you slept with wanted to stay virginal for marriage and assumed you would stick around. By pumping and dumping you've committed a sin. This wasn't loving behavior.

What if you don't care about marrying a virginal woman and the woman you're sleeping with just enjoys sex for the sake of sex with whomever she pleases?

It can get complicated at this point. Remember, we were made in God's image. By fornicating with women who are happy to degrade themselves you are tarnishing God's image. If you loved God with all of your heart would you really want to tarnish his image by using two images (yourself and the female's) in ways that would be considered unloving in God's eyes?

This is where sin stops becoming a simple black and white thing to something that is more grey. Humans don't like grey areas and this is where logic starts to break down because it doesn't like ambiguity.

The beauty of all this is, if you decide to apply logic to spiritual ideals you'll fail and get stuck neck deep in sin. Christianity offers a way to heal yourself spiritually from the death that will occur by blinding following earthly logic on spiritual subjects.

The new testament seeks to establish a wholly flexible empathetic and altruistic law onto a world that isn't perfect.

TL;DR You will fail in your efforts to protect yourself using earthly logic in this world to protect your spirit. Christianity will guide you through the mine field and help you heal when you get burned by it.

[debeguiled]

Good post, Beast.

I love all of you guys, but there is a lot of biblical nitpicking and twisting and weird legalism in this thread.

Just look at the New Testament over all, instead of searching for verses that can possibly be interpreted as green lights.

What is the central metaphor of the the New Testament?

A father who would rather let his own son experience a tortured death than raise his hand in violence against a cruel world.

And Jesus instructs us that if we want to follow him, we need to be willing to take up our own crosses.

Many of the early apostles did just that, starting with Stephen, the first martyr, and their lives ended in crucifixions and tortured deaths.

The main idea here is that faith, through some mysterious way that revealed itself through experiencing it, would turn normal men and women away from the habits and desires of their old lives into people who would willingly sacrifice everything for their beliefs.

Christianity has two thousand years of cruft heaped up on top of it through writing and tradition that allows us to take it off in all sorts of directions as it suits us, when it suits us, and how it suits us, when in reality, it is what it is:

Only a homely little religion, promising nothing more than food to eat and clothes to wear. All of the real rewards, besides the ultimate reward of heaven, are invisible and internal, spiritual gifts that allow the believer to face all sorts of trials with joy and patience.

In that context then, the real context of the overall teachings of Christianity, does it make any sense to be going back and forth over whether you can fool around or not before marriage?

With all of the sacrifices that true faith makes of the believer, giving up a little pussy is way down the list in terms of sacrifice or difficulty. Paul, in his letters, states explicitly that the best thing is if all would be like him, that is celibate and unmarried, dedicating themselves to God totally. When he tells his followers that it is okay to be married and have sex with a wife, it is not a commandment, it is a concession, and again, he explicitly says, it is better to just get married than to burn too much with passion.

I am not, by the way, saying this as a Christian (Not one.), and I, personally, have no opinion what you should or should not be doing with your lives. You are all grown men and perfectly capable of deciding that for yourselves.

I do, however, have a lot of respect for Christianity as a faith, more than any other religion I have come across, and if you read the New Testament with an open mind and an open heart, without your own agenda of what you personally do or do not want to be doing with your life, it should be pretty much impossible to come away with the conclusion that premarital sex is okay for men.

Jesus sets the bar for morality incredibly high, impossibly high really, and that has a salutary effect on the human spirit, never allowing it to slack off and rationalize its behavior. You will always fail finally, and that is where the doctrine of forgiveness and grace come in, which is a whole other issue I won't go into now. The main idea is you are supposed to do your best to live to the highest possible standards of love for your friends and your enemies, and win them over by example.

The best in Christian behavior often ends up in poverty, ridicule, ostracization, and extreme cases torture and death. It has been watered down over the centuries, and yet there it is.

It might be the hardest road a pitiful human soul could possibly follow, and issues like whether or not it is allowed to engage in a little premarital bonking are striking in the way they diminish a beautiful religious tradition.

Jesus wants you to have deeper things on your mind than fucking. That's just the way it is. It is, despite our modern attitudes, pretty low on the ladder of Christian rights and privileges.

Personally, I am not against pre-marital sex. I think each man has to make up his own mind about what is right or moral for himself, and what he can comfortably live with. For example, some guy who sleeps with a lot of women, and truly takes on board the concept of "leaving her better than you found her" is a stronger moral actor (in my opinion)than a guy who married his high school sweetheart, and never slept with anyone else, and at the same time has a dead marriage and totally takes his wife for granted.

When I sleep with a woman I am not married to, and feel good about it, it is my action and my decision, and that is that. Why isn't that good enough?

Why do we have to be combing through the Bible looking for some complicated justifications for Jesus being cool with it?

Makes no sense to me.

[Truth Teller]

Samseau's argument, while admittedly clever, fails on the basis that the NT was not written in English nor in Latin. It was written in Greek.

1 Cor. 7:2 uses the Greek word πορνεἰασ, which is best translated as "to engage in sexual immorality, engage in illicit sex, to fornicate." In the atmosphere of the time, any sex outside of marriage would've been considered immoral, at least to Paul. The Corinthians may have thought differently based on their primarily Greek outlook (see Paul's discussion of the Resurrection in 1 Cor. 15).