I wonder what christianity is turning to these days....smh....trying to please oneself instead of God...

Goshen360:

Welcome my beloved brother. You're very welcome! lemme make it ETERNALLY CLEAR HERE BEFORE FOLK START READING ME OUT OF CONTEXT, THAT IS IF THEY ARE NOT DOING SO ALREADY - FORNICATION IS A SIN. The argument (reasoning) here is, what then is fornication? That's the bone of contention here sir. You're welcome to answer the question.

s*x from the christian point of view is between a MAN and his W'FE, outside that it is fornication, my dear brother, s*x is more than physical sensation, it is a koinonia(misspel mine if any) of two spirits, sometimes we use the word 'consumation,' s*x is one of the highest spiritual activities, it joins/welds/fuses/mixes/melts two spirit into one. Plz see 1cor6. That was why Paul advised, if one cant stay single, to marry, because a man+wife=one couple, by the time you start that theory where una just propounded in this thread ie 's*x between 2 consented single individuals is not sin" thats to say any 2 single individuals whether brothers and sisters, a widower/widow with daughter/son, pastor and prostitute, etc etc are free as long as they are single and agree. This is very unfortunate. Pls can we teach our children this?

^ Ahhhhhhhhh, I now see people have misunderstood me or perhaps misunderstood okeyxyz. Okay, I will explain my point or myself for clarity and record purpose. Give me like 2 hours, I have to quickly do some assignment right now okay, my brother. I will be back. Thanks

Goshen360: ^ But I didn't say that right? Was it me that said that?

you didn't say it but keeping quiet when someone said it and from your support 4 d one who did; it is as good as saying it urself.

phtemie: I wonder what christianity is turning to these days....smh....trying to please oneself instead of God...

my broda, i tire - o, instead of ppl to repent from their childishness and grow up, rathei they want to 'rationalize' their 'practice of sin' sex was meant to be aetween the man and his wife, otherwise there is no diff between man and goat. GOD BLESS.

okeyxyz:

This is very insightful. NICE!!
Se.x itself is not(and cannot be) sin. The real "sin" is se.x-abuse; meaning se.xual-immorality; meaning fornication. Abuse is either unnatural or illegal(without consent) se.x, including r.ape, bestiality, homo\bi-se.xuality, pedophilia, idolatry, etc

You do not need marriage to enjoy se.x. Marriage as we know it is a invention\tradition of man, not of god. Se.x between consenting adult male and female CANNOT be sin, it is a nature and it is godly expression. This is the freedom that christ has given you: the infinite right to go as you "please", to express your true self without the conscience of the law in the way to condemn you with it's: "Thou shalt not..., thou shalt not...". If god cannot sin, then whatsoever is of god's nature(pleasures of eating, drinking and s.ex) cannot be sin. Enjoy...

Goshen r those d nature of God? does God have sexx?

i pity!

Goshen360: ^ Ahhhhhhhhh, I now see people have misunderstood me or perhaps misunderstood okeyxyz. Okay, I will explain my point or myself for clarity and record purpose. Give me like 2 hours, I have to quickly do some assignment right now okay, my brother. I will be back. Thanks

Goshen,
How does someone misunderstand you and okeyxyz who basically said:

1. There is no sin when two unmarried consenting adults have intimacy So in other words you mean nothing wrong in two grown siblings being intimate as well.

2. There is no sin if a man or woman allows his spouse to have sex with someone else, 'afterall a man and woman have no authority over their bodies'

This is disturbing coming from a supposed christian!!!

okeyxyz:

This passage is packed with wisdom. To start with: Why was there an issue of fornication in the first place if not that the gospel itself preached s.exual liberty? But because of the misuse of s.exual liberty with christians feeling that liberty means you have a right to another man's wife or betrothed, therefore causing conflicts. Paul's advice was that each man should have his wife and each woman her husband if they cannot bear to share their woman\man. Remember that he started with "it is good for a man not to touch a woman(1 Cor 7:1)" but because of how we use language, society has misinterpreted "touch" to mean s.exual contact. But no, "touch"(check your bible dictionaries) in this case means to possess or to own a woman for yourself, therefore denying others access to her(because of jealousy). Paul CANNOT possibly be telling these guys not to have s.ex!! Likewise he said to the widows and the unmarried that it is good they do not marry, but if they cannot have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to "burn with passion"(1 cor 7:9 ). Again here, he's not using "burn with [passion]" to mean s.ex, but the jealousy that arises from letting others have access to your woman\man.

We know(or believe) that the apostles were never married, thus the manner of paul's advice to christians that he wished that everybody were to be like him(unmarried), But
I cannot possibly believe that these apostles went without s.ex, NO!! I DON'T BELIEVE SO. How can Paul tell people to go without s.ex?? He simply advised them to go without marriage, but if you cannot contain your emotions\jealousy, then please go ahead and marry.

see dis one again?...interesting! christembassy don't b deceived...d argument is about whether or not unmarried christians can go and enjoy themselves in pre-marital sexx. it is not about d definition of fornication.

Calculus12:

Dis is self deceit! Christembassy d real argument of dis hypocrites is whether d bible supports sexx by two unmarried people. Someone even said Apostle Paul had sexx when body no gree am

well a baby who poo in his/her pant is still a human being, pls lets not call ppl names, otherwise i quite the thread. Lets discus like children of God. 2tim2:24-. More grace to all

christemmbassey: well a baby who poo in his/her pant is still a human being, pls lets not call ppl names, otherwise i quite the thread. Lets discus like children of God. 2tim2:24-. More grace to all

ok but they should stop saying things like: sexx is God's nature! if someone can't respect God then the person does not deserve respect. i apologize 4 using dat word but dey can have pre-marital sexx if dey want but dey should stop blaspheming God.

atheist will blaspheme we will complain, now those who call themselves christians r doing d same.

Calculus12:

see dis one again?...interesting! christembassy don't b deceived...d argument is about whether or not unmarried christians can go and enjoy themselves in pre-marital sexx. it is not about d definition of fornication.

pls this broda needs prayer not condemnation, @okeyxyz, are you a christian? Pls no offence intendf

Not surprising. . . . the thread has gone the same way as the previous one. Lots of pontificating and often a failure to even attempt to understand what is being discussed.

Might as well merge this thread with the previous one.

Calculus12:

ok but they should stop saying things like: sexx is God's nature! if someone can't respect God then the person does not deserve respect. i apologize 4 using dat word but dey can have pre-marital sexx if dey want but dey should stop blaspheming God.

atheist will blaspheme we will complain, now those who call themselves christians r doing d same.

do you kill a baby if he/she eat her/his poo? no, you force his mouth open, make him vomit and clean him up. Its a pity.

christemmbassey: do you kill a baby if he/she eat her/his poo? no, you force his mouth open, make him vomit and clean him up. Its a pity.

ok! I will excuse you guys so dat i don't say something i will regret!

pls no one should speak against God! let's keep d discussion simple abeg!

Snowwy:

Goshen,
How does someone misunderstand you and okeyxyz who basically said:

1. There is no sin when two unmarried consenting adults have intimacy So in other words you mean nothing wrong in two grown siblings being intimate as well.

2. There is no sin if a man or woman allows his spouse to have sex with someone else, 'afterall a man and woman have no authority over their bodies'

This is disturbing coming from a supposed christian!!!

@all christians, this guy has not claim to be a christian,i suspect he is an atheist, you know they like christianity + bible. So until he tells us his faith and church pls lets ignore this thread. Peace.

Snowwy:

Goshen,
How does someone misunderstand you and okeyxyz who basically said:

1. There is no sin when two unmarried consenting adults have intimacy So in other words you mean nothing wrong in two grown siblings being intimate as well.

2. There is no sin if a man or woman allows his spouse to have sex with someone else, 'afterall a man and woman have no authority over their bodies'

This is disturbing coming from a supposed christian!!!

Snowwy, you've REALLY misunderstood me; maybe PLUS others too. That is why kind of teaching is definitely going to mislead the young Christians if not properly handled because many will take it out of context, misunderstand and misuse what is said here.

First, you quoted me out of context with what I agree to what okeyxyz said. How do I mean? I NEVER agree to #2 above - That was okeyxyz's words. If I agreed to #2, kindly quote me.

2. I only agree to #1 within the definition of the word 'fornication' when I looked up the word. Now, I will proceed to apply the definition of the word, 'fornication' within the context of what I agree to. Maybe you'll find patience to allow me finish. Yes, two unmarried people can commit 'fornication' which in this case means 'illicit' s.ex BUT not all s.ex is 'illicit' thereby making it fornication.

Abeg cool down make we reason together

debosky: Not surprising. . . . the thread has gone the same way as the previous one. Lots of pontificating and often a failure to even attempt to understand what is being discussed.

Might as well merge this thread with the previous one.

Hey bro. I will make attempt to make it clear if there'll be not derail. At least we're all adult Christians. We should reason together.

okeyxyz:

Your question is not well qualified. S.ex between two single, unmarried people is not a sin.

You have spoken well...now answer me this: Is lust between two single unmarried people a sin? Yes or no?

Mr_Anony:
You have spoken well...now answer me this: Is lust between two single unmarried people a sin? Yes or no?

Lust is SIN. - That's where the 'illicit' s.ex we are talking about comes in. Maybe okeyxyz will answer for himself but that's my answer according to scriptures.

I will follow up with many and intensive teaching thereafter. I'm trying to collate a verifiable study materials for everyone to access online. Thank you!

Goshen360:

Hey bro. I will make attempt to make it clear if there'll be not derail. At least we're all adult Christians. We should reason together.

my broda, i dont know if you 've seen my opinion, in my view as a christian, sex should be between A MAN AND HIS WIFE, outside that, it is illicit, fornication/adultery therefor a sin, its is not food, but highly spiritual activity that welds or joins two halves to become one. It is a kolnonia of two spirits, i suspect okeyxyz, pls allow the Spirit of God to teach you not how well you can explain any man's writtings, it is not theology pls.

Goshen360:

Lust is SIN. - That's where the 'illicit' s.ex we are talking about comes in. Maybe okeyxyz will answer for himself but that's my answer according to scriptures.

I will follow up with many and intensive teaching thereafter. I'm trying to collate a verifiable study materials for everyone to access online. Thank you!

Good answer...so if lust between two single unmarried people is sin, is there a type of sex that is without lust?

Mr_Anony:
Good answer...so if lust between two single unmarried people is sin, is there a type of sex that is without lust?

I will put everything in place with the right use of words as we proceed. Cool down bro.

Mr_Anony:
Good answer...so if lust between two single unmarried people is sin, is there a type of sex that is without lust?

Christ while talking about false teachers warned that they may even try to decieve the very elect, so pls lets be careful. @Okeyxyz are you a christian? Pls i need an answer.

christemmbassey: my broda, i dont know if you 've seen my opinion, in my view as a christian, sex should be between A MAN AND HIS WIFE, outside that, it is illicit, fornication/adultery therefor a sin, its is not food, but highly spiritual activity that welds or joins two halves to become one. It is a kolnonia of two spirits, i suspect okeyxyz, pls allow the Spirit of God to teach you not how well you can explain any man's writtings, it is not theology pls.

That's what I'm saying - Two unmarried people can commit fornication (that is, illicit or abuse or unlawful s.ex) but we have to put it in the context and then we leave it as it is. I'm not trying to use theology though but we can't understand context when we don't really understand what the words means, then how do we apply the word?

Goshen360:

I will put everything in place with the right use of words as we proceed. Cool down bro.

Take your time bro. Just be careful when you answer that you do not twist words in such a way as to condone sin. I think my questions are pretty simple and straightforward and your conscience by now must have given you the very obvious answer.

Goshen360:

That's what I'm saying - Two unmarried people can commit fornication (that is, illicit or abuse or unlawful s.ex) but we have to put it in the context and then we leave it as it is. I'm not trying to use theology though but we can't understand context when we don't really understand what the words means, then how do we apply the word?

Goshen stop beating around the bush. You are focusing on the letter here and not the Spirit. The question is about the action and not what particular word is used to describe it. If lust between two unmarried people is sin, then in order for sex between them not to be sin it must be completely devoid of lust.

If you show me such special kind of sex that exists totally free of lust then you have a point and we can now begin looking at "context", if not then you are just seeking a loophole by trying to redefine what it means to abuse sex.

If fornication is illicit sex and any lust outside marriage is illicit lust, then it follows that any sex whatsoever outside marriage will equally fall under the category of illicit sex. Simple logic

In order to contest this, you must show us a type of sex that is entirely devoid of lust. Only then will you and okeyxyz's "theology" begin to make any sort scriptural sense to base discussions on. For now, you are both wrong as far as scripture is concerned.

So if one can get consent with 20,30 ladies b4 se.x na 2 dey f.uck dey go.....smh once again...

Mr_Anony:

If fornication is illicit sex and any lust outside marriage is illicit lust, then it follows that any sex whatsoever outside marriage will equally fall under the category of illicit sex. Simple logic

On the above, lemme ask you a question. If a man and a woman is committed to marrying one another with consent and from both parents but have not yet married, having pre-marriage s.ex or making love to one another; is that a fornication that is, is that an illicit s.ex?

Mr_Anony:
Goshen stop beating around the bush. You are focusing on the letter here and not the Spirit. The question is about the action and not what particular word is used to describe it. If lust between two unmarried people is sin, then in order for sex between them not to be sin it must be completely devoid of lust.

If you show me such special kind of sex that exists totally free of lust then you have a point and we can now begin looking at "context", if not then you are just seeking a loophole by trying to redefine what it means to abuse sex.

If fornication is illicit sex and any lust outside marriage is illicit lust, then it follows that any sex whatsoever outside marriage will equally fall under the category of illicit sex. Simple logic

In order to contest this, you must show us a type of sex that is entirely devoid of lust. Only then will you and okeyxyz's "theology" begin to make any sort scriptural sense to base discussions on. For now, you are both wrong as far as scripture is concerned.

Christ said if you (merely) look LUSTFULLY at some one you have commited, we are trying to battle this and some one just appear with this strange 'consent and single', guys sin no get bracket, sin na sin no matter your status, single, double, married/unmarried, if is not with ur spouse, s*x is fornication/adultery and sin.

Goshen360:

On the above, lemme ask you a question. If a man and a woman is committed to marrying one another with consent and from both parents but have not yet married, having pre-marriage s.ex or making love to one another; is that a fornication that is, is that an illicit s.ex?

a very careful NO.

Goshen360:

On the above, lemme ask you a question. If a man and a woman is committed to marrying one another with consent and from both parents but have not yet married, having pre-marriage s.ex or making love to one another; is that a fornication that is, is that an illicit s.ex?

Yes it is illicit sex. They are not married. Promise of marriage does not automatically equal marriage.

christemmbassey: a very careful NO.

What're you saying NO to please? Kindly follow up with words. That's where I'm going o