What does the Bible say about pre-maritial sex?

[roqnap1]

So if people believe they are doing God's will by flying planes into the Pentagon and World Trade Center... they are going to heaven, right?

That is what I believe...God may see it differently. I won't know until I die.

But thanks for twisting my words and attempting to make me look like a Bin Laden Sympathist

[prophet]

No, I don't think I've ever brought it up, I was saying its brought up in EVERY thread on this topic. And I already have seen it religious threads, so I'm not going to search for it. You're the skeptic, you search for it if you really don't believe me. :whoknows:

your the one that claims it happens all the time on here... I've never seen it.

So there is nothing for me to search on... Its your claim. I would think you would need to back it up.

My big problem is you take one so called "christian" saying something that doesn't exactly line up with the bible, and lump them with the whole group.

Can't this be done with any people group? But for christians its always taken to the extreme... Its a double standard. But I've come to welcome it.

[jrockster21]

already anwsered that

Not really...this is what you said:

I've had one partner in my life... I stick to what I believe

That response does not admit or deny premarital sex.

[twa]

The point of this whole thread is that "Christian" groups target gays... but they are completely hyocritical when it comes to pre-maritial sex or even divorce.

How come there's not a "make divorce a crime" amendment?

Did you know that the divorce rate for Evangelical Christians is as high as the divorce rate in general?

Christians come out harder against gays than people who have sex outside of marriage, and come out even less hard against people who get married and divorce....

Divorce became accepted socialy when Moses allowed it,however I do not believe God sanctions it as part of his plan for our lives.

A perfect case of society redefining God's will to fit thier own desires

[jrockster21]

your the one that claims it happens all the time on here... I've never seen it.

So there is nothing for me to search on... Its your claim. I would think you would need to back it up.

Fine....THERE. :laugh:

[Fergasun]

That is what I believe...God may see it differently. I won't know until I die.

But thanks for twisting my words and attempting to make me look like a Bin Laden Sympathist

I just used an extreme example to poke a hole in your logic.

That belief is like "I Dream of Jennie"... make up your own reality...

You were the one who shared it... so I thought I would give you some feedback...

[PleaseBlitz]

already anwsered that

Not really...this is what you said:

That response does not admit or deny premarital sex.

You lied.

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Youre going to hell.

[roqnap1]

I just used an extreme example to poke a hole in your logic.

That belief is like "I Dream of Jennie"... make up your own reality...

You were the one who shared it... so I thought I would give you some feedback...

Who said anything about Logic? Logic is scientific...Beliefs and Faith are not based on fact or logic. Logically...man can't walk on water or make wine from water...but some people's beliefs and faith allow them to believe that this has happened.

[DeanCollins]

Not really...this is what you said:

That response does not admit or deny premarital sex.

Jrock, is your hypocrit-o-meter reading

:bsflag:

[jrockster21]

Jrock, is your hypocrit-o-meter reading

:bsflag:

:laugh: Loud and clear!! :laugh:

[ChocolateCitySkin]

The way I look at it, the more fools that believe that crap, the more poontang for me. :cool: I'll be enjoying my 32 skank whores in HELL!

Me and you Bro! :chestram:

[techboy]

And I said YOU were not a hypocrit. But there are tons of "Christians" who participate in pre-marital sex, and in the same breath condemn homosexuality.

They suck.

Longer answer: They are allowing themselves to be trapped by their own sin, and engaging in thinly veiled rationaliziation to justify it, while condemning the sin they are not commiting.

Short answer: They suck.

[DeanCollins]

engaging in thinly veiled rationaliziation to justify it, while condemning the sin they are not commiting.

This is, apparently, the point of this thread. why is it necessary to openly condemn others instead of just focusing on one's self? Hypocricy has no legs

once the condemning of others ends

[techboy]

It is the "word of Christ" written 300 years after he died for our sins.

Try again. Every text in the entire New Testament was written in the 1st Century AD. Very good evidence dates the Gospels as follows:

Matthew: 60-65 AD

Mark: mid 50's AD

Luke: 61-62 AD

John: Either 60s or 90s AD, depending upon which school of thought one follows.

Some skeptical scholars date the Gospels a little later than this, but noone serious that I'm aware of puts them outside the 1st century AD, which is nowhere even close to the 300 year figure you're referring to. For one thing, we have a fragment of the Gospel of John (considered by all scholars to be the last written) dated from 125 AD found in Egypt, so all of them had to have been written earlier than that (and early enough for it to get to Egypt).

On top of that...there is a lot lost in translation.

Inaccurate as well. We still have many texts in the original languages from which to translate, so there is no such problem. It's not like we have translations of translations of translations. To save everyone from reading the same thing again, I'll just point you to the post I address this issue here.

I won't address the rest of your post, because those are your personal opinions and beliefs, and you're welcome to them. You might want to make sure, though, that your opinions and beliefs are based on accurate information.

[MisterPinstripe]

:laugh: Loud and clear!! :laugh:

Jrock, is your hypocrit-o-meter reading

:bsflag:

So because you guys didnt keep from having premarital sex, it means anyone who claims to is a liar? :doh:

[DeanCollins]

So because you guys didnt keep from having premarital sex, it means anyone who claims to is a liar? :doh:

Profet never claimed to, just alluded to it :laugh:

why, are you making said claim?

[MisterPinstripe]

Profet never claimed to, just alluded to it :laugh:

why, are you making said claim?

Wasnt my meaning, but yes I havent, and not that difficult to since I am only 19. But its my belief that it is wrong, so its something I am not going to do. Its really not difficult if someone wants to keep from having sex, just takes a little self control. Plus it keeps diseases from spreading...

[roqnap1]

Try again. Every text in the entire New Testament was written in the 1st Century AD. Very good evidence dates the Gospels as follows:

Matthew: 60-65 AD

Mark: mid 50's AD

Luke: 61-62 AD

John: Either 60s or 90s AD, depending upon which school of thought one follows.

Some skeptical scholars date the Gospels a little later than this, but noone serious that I'm aware of puts them outside the 1st century AD, which is nowhere even close to the 300 year figure you're referring to. For one thing, we have a fragment of the Gospel of John (considered by all scholars to be the last written) dated from 125 AD found in Egypt, so all of them had to have been written earlier than that (and early enough for it to get to Egypt).

Inaccurate as well. We still have many texts in the original languages from which to translate, so there is no such problem. It's not like we have translations of translations of translations. To save everyone from reading the same thing again, I'll just point you to the post I address this issue here.

I won't address the rest of your post, because those are your personal opinions and beliefs, and you're welcome to them. You might want to make sure, though, that your opinions and beliefs are based on accurate information.

I'll give you the first one...I threw a big number out there to make a point rather than do the research. The point I was making was that the "words of Christ" never came from his hand. At BEST, the scriptures were written over 40 years after his death. How much can be forgotten or mistaken in that amount of time?

The second, however, I am right about. The Bible uses language patterns that are no longer used. I don't mean LANGUAGE as it was written in either Aramaic or Greek. One easy to translate the other a little more difficult (however still able to translate).

However, many verses/chapters can be read by two people and they will come up with two completely different versions of what they believe is meant by it/them.

Many anti-gay sentiment stems from the readings of Leviticus. However, Leviticus is full of amazing staments that are at the least...OUTDATED.

And who's to say any of us are getting the correct meaning of Leviticus? We'll all find out if/when we're judged.

[jrockster21]

So because you guys didnt keep from having premarital sex, it means anyone who claims to is a liar? :doh:

:doh: Did you even read the thread?? Your statement makes no sense; our intentions were clear if you followed the thread. Prophet made a statement that he's only slept with one woman his entire life (poor guy), and then when asked if he'd had premarital sex, claimed he answered that question.

Saying you've had one partner your entire life doesn't exclude premarital sex. Got it now?? :doh:

Wasnt my meaning, but yes I havent, and not that difficult to since I am only 19. But its my belief that it is wrong, so its something I am not going to do. Its really not difficult if someone wants to keep from having sex, just takes a little self control. Plus it keeps diseases from spreading...

Only 19?? You better get to work dude....there are tons of hot college chicks that are desperate for some lovin'...

[jbooma]

god forgives everything so just be careful

[MisterPinstripe]

Did you even read the thread?? Your statement makes no sense; our intentions were clear if you followed the thread. Prophet made a statement that he's only slept with one woman his entire life (poor guy), and then when asked if he'd had premarital sex, claimed he answered that question.

Saying you've had one partner your entire life doesn't exclude premarital sex. Got it now??

Only 19?? You better get to work dude....there are tons of hot college chicks that are desperate for some lovin'...

I got that the first time, and I understand what you were saying, but it also seemed like you were also saying he was lieing because of how he worded it. I think that is an unfair assesment, though I cant say if its true or not.

I think I can live without the college chicks.

god forgives everything so just be careful

Well, he forgives as long as you repent and mean it, and dont use the fact that you repented as an excuse to keep doing it as long as you keep repenting.

[MisterPinstripe]

:doh: Did you even read the thread?? Your statement makes no sense; our intentions were clear if you followed the thread. Prophet made a statement that he's only slept with one woman his entire life (poor guy), and then when asked if he'd had premarital sex, claimed he answered that question.

Saying you've had one partner your entire life doesn't exclude premarital sex. Got it now?? :doh:

Only 19?? You better get to work dude....there are tons of hot college chicks that are desperate for some lovin'...

I got that the first time, and I understand what you were saying, but it also seemed like you were also saying he was lieing because of how he worded it. I think that is an unfair assesment, though I cant say if its true or not.

I think I can live without the college chicks.

god forgives everything so just be careful

Well, he forgives as long as you repent and mean it, and dont use the fact that you repented as an excuse to keep doing it as long as you keep repenting.

[techboy]

I'll give you the first one...I threw a big number out there to make a point rather than do the research. The point I was making was that the "words of Christ" never came from his hand. At BEST, the scriptures were written over 40 years after his death. How much can be forgotten or mistaken in that amount of time?

Actually, from the Ressurection to Mark is more like 15 to 20 years, rather than 40, but I see your point. There are two things here I'd like to note, though.

1. 1st Century Palestine was a culture steeped in oral tradition. As Dr. William Lane Craig writes in The Evidence for Jesus

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

This care seems to be confirmed by the historical accuracy of the Gospels, in particular Luke. From the same article:

Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively. The book of Acts overlaps significantly with secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable. This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. {5}Hemer goes through the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details which only a local person would know. Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right. According to Professor Sherwin-White, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."{6} The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist, still stands: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."{7} Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.

2. It is widely believed that the Gospels themselves used earlier sources. Again, from the same article:

This point becomes even more devastating for skepticism when we recall that the gospels themselves use sources that go back even closer to the events of Jesus’s life. For example, the story of Jesus’s suffering and death, commonly called the Passion Story, was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather Mark used a source for this narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must be even earlier. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.{3}

As to the translation issue, I think you're perhaps exaggerating the difficulties involved. The linguists doing this have devoted their entire lives to the subject, have over 2000 years of work to draw upon, and are very good at their jobs. Any variants in translation are typically extremely minor, and I am unaware of any doctrine affected by them. Further, most of those variants are due to slight differences between manuscripts, and not disagreements in translation.

[techboy]

god forgives everything so just be careful

Thank you, Rasputin, for your theological opinion.

Paul seems to feel differently.

Romans 6:15:

15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

The context for this verse is found in Romans 5:1-11

1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a]have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3Not only so, but we[c] also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Paul is basically saying that even though Christians are accounted the Righteousness of Jesus at Judgement, and so not held accountable for our sins (which is how gay people, liars, and all the other sinners listed in the previous passages can get into Heaven), it's not a "blank check". Later passages even suggest that the Christian who goes on willingly sinning may not be a Christian at all.

This is not to say that Christians do not struggle with sin.

Romans 7:14-25

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

The key word here, though, is struggle. Christians may struggle with sin, but they should not embrace it.

[twa]

Very well done Techboy ,not that all will understand. :applause: