alexleo: @Goshen360,
Your teaching on this issue is VERY WRONG. Sex outside marriage(with the due process followed and completed) is a SIN in whatever way you look at it. If two people have in mind to marry and have not gone through the process required for marriage they are not married and can call the relationship a quit anytime at that point without being guilty of divorce. For example, if someone wants to pursue a PHD and he still has it in mind, or has even started the program, he cannot claim to have the PHD until he completes the requirements of the program. You see, i keep saying this- Lets be careful not to give out cheap gospel to people in the name of "Grace period". Cheap gospel is a poison coated with sweetness to deceive the receiver and we need to be very careful with what we are teaching because we shall answer for every soul we deceived with our teachings.
Now, i ll rather not teach at all than to teach and miss heaven because i taught false message. The ones am very sure and convinced about by the Holy Spirit, that i ll teach. I pray the Lord to help you as you continue to study the word. Actually i do present my brethren here before the Lord that he will continue to guide us all aright that we may not deliver a wrong teaching which in turn will deceive anybody and we miss heaven for that. And i hope you guys are praying for me too. I DONT WANT TO MISS HEAVEN FOR ANY REASON. I CHOOSE TO STAND WITH GOD AT ALL TIMES AND IT DOESNT MATTER WHETHER MY FLESH LIKES IT OR NOT. Thats why i like the discussions that have been going on in the religious section in recent past so as to learn from each other. Its obvious we have passed the stage of constant argument with atheists whether God exists or not. The one we are doing now is the one that is more profitable. God bless you.

Ihedinobi:

Not quite. He indeed slept with her before considering marriage to her, but in the context of the Old Testament, @Alwaystrue is completely right.

He had come to redeem her honor by marrying her. From time immemorial, humans have been like that: you corrupt my daughter's purity, you better marry her. Doesn't matter if it was your intent before you did or after you did.

They held that he had made their sister a harlot by sleeping with her without marrying her, intent or the lack of it notwithstanding. And the law that came by Moses corroborated that thought. A husband could demand that his wife be stoned to death because she wasn't a virgin the first night he slept with jer having married her and that singular detail - her not being a virgin - was the reason that she was accused of harlotry not for the number of men she may have slept with or whether she did it for money.

In other words, the Old Testament unequivocally condemned pre-marital sexx in every hue.

Goshen360:

Again, where in that context did you read Paul mentioning VIRGIN? What is wrong with you? Paul simply said what he said to the UNMARRIED AND THE NEXT VERSE WAS TO THE MARRIED. Lemme leave with that again, let me do the word study so we can understand the context.

Goshen360:
That word to be incensed means to set yourself in the mood that has to do with mastur.bation. That's very simple and clear. Clearly, Paul is saying to the UNMARRIED, if you cannot control yourself and rather than setting yourself in the mood by mastur.bating, then you should marry. Again, we see masturb.ation as an act of fornication. A sin commited against one's own body.

Alwaystrue:
I Corinthians 7:36-38
36 But if any man thinks that he is not acting properly toward and in regard to his virgin [that he is preparing disgrace for her or incurring reproach], in case she is passing the bloom of her youth and if there is need for it, let him do what to him seems right; he does not sin; let them marry.
37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart [strong in mind and purpose], not being forced by necessity but having control over his own will and desire, and has resolved this in his heart to keep his own virginity, he is doing well.
38 So also then, he [the father] who gives his virgin (his daughter) in marriage does well, and he [the father] who does not give [her] in marriage does better.

Reyginus: Interesting what is happening here. Like someone is trying to redefine what we have in the bible.
+Takes sit+ Good evening brethrens.

Candour: Romans 14:16
''Let not then your good be evil spoken of:''

Romans 14:19
''Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace,and things wherewith one may edify another''

in line with the above scriptures,my belief on this issue as i said in the other thread is that if a brother and a sister have decided to marry,why not go ahead to the registry and settle it?in the eyes of the law of the land,you only need 2 witnesses and Jesus said ''render to Caesar what is Ceasar's......''

The bible is so clear on this that we do not need STRONG to tell us.Even if you believe you're at liberty,see what Paul said about liberty

1 Cor 8:9
''But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak''

1 Cor 10:23
''All things are lawful for me,but all things are not expedient:all things are lawful for me,but all things edify not''

What will it cost a spirit filled Christian to ''hold body'' and get to a registry to concretize the union before indulging his flesh? The example of a marooned brother and sister was raised.My reply to that is must we go to that extreme to prove this point?how many of us have been marooned on an island before? when we bring up arguments like this,we are no different from lawyers and Pharisees who try to find loopholes to exploit in the law.Why not wait until you are forgotten on an island with your 'intended' before worrying about it?

According to this theory of 'intention to marry',all i need do is convince sister comfort to marry me today,sleep with her and then do same to sister rose next week then sister agatha follows too.

STRONG'S CONCORDANCE is good but it will not replace the bible.My grand mother doesn't speak english,does it mean she's doomed to biblical illiteracy since STRONG has not been translated in my language?

Please for the unmarried among us,if you've seen your mate,just go ahead and legalise it.you dont need to provide rice and drinks for anybody.Go to the registry and settle it.The problem is our modern Christianity that assumes you can't marry until you wear a white gown and suit then stand before a MOG in a fanciful church.You can do it @ home or the court premises.

If you say this to my pagan grand uncle in the village,you'll be very repulsive in his sight and i wonder how the gospel will be preached to him then.

May God help us in our quest for a sweeter and more fulfilling walk with him

frosbel:


I totally agree.

I am talking from experience having made mistakes in my life time , it is better to marry than to burn and it is better to do it God's way that our way.

Sex before marriage is wrong no matter how we look at it , and there can be no justification for a continuity in this act.

We need to look for our wives after prayer and marry them after the usual investigation, family interaction and a period of familiarity.

If you like a girl enough to want to have s.ex with her, then be a MAN and also marry her, otherwise you will leave behind a trail of destruction that will not only destroy you spiritually but will come to haunt you one day.

Goshen360: @ OP,

Now my stand on 'fornication'.

Religion had defined fornication as sexxual activity between singles (unmarried) ONLY while adultery as sexxual act outside of marriage other than your spouse. That definition is FALSE! We will go into adultery as we go along but let's limit it to fornication as per the OP.

My stand from my study is, fornication is or includes a whole range of sexxual misconduct not connected to single\unmarried persons ONLY but includes married person(s) who engages in adultery, incest, idolatry, lust, harl.otry or who.re\wh.ore.monger(s), pros.titu.tion, best.iality, homo.sex.ual\lesbia.nism etc depending on the context as used in scriptures.

Now, a single\unmarried person CAN commit fornication depending on any of the above mentioned that he\she engages in BUT the whole definition and meaning of 'fornication' DOES NOT APPLY TO OR EXTEND TO two committed singles who are 'faithful' to one another, committed to marrying one another, love one another and intend to spend the rest of their lives with one another having sort approval from both parents even though they haven't gone through the 'ceremonial' or 'formalized' wedding yet.

CAUTION: Before it gets to this stage, ONE MUST BE ABSOLUTELY SURE THIS IS THE MAN OR THIS IS THE WOMAN FOR HIM\HER otherwise, such will be committing fornication by the act of being a who.re or a who.re.mon.ger. This is because, the act of truly being married is already concluded in their heart and the marriage is just a mere ceremony as the prove of what took place in their heart. I believe God who sees the heart already sees them as married just the ceremony to formalize them. Hence, I do not see these two people committing fornication as the definition and meanings of fornication from scriptures does not extend to them.

That's my stand and we can begin to expand on the above.

Candour: Romans 14:16
''Let not then your good be evil spoken of:''

Romans 14:19
''Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace,and things wherewith one may edify another''

in line with the above scriptures,my belief on this issue as i said in the other thread is that if a brother and a sister have decided to marry,why not go ahead to the registry and settle it?in the eyes of the law of the land,you only need 2 witnesses and Jesus said ''render to Caesar what is Ceasar's......''

The bible is so clear on this that we do not need STRONG to tell us.Even if you believe you're at liberty,see what Paul said about liberty

1 Cor 8:9
''But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak''

1 Cor 10:23
''All things are lawful for me,but all things are not expedient:all things are lawful for me,but all things edify not''

What will it cost a spirit filled Christian to ''hold body'' and get to a registry to concretize the union before indulging his flesh? The example of a marooned brother and sister was raised.My reply to that is must we go to that extreme to prove this point?how many of us have been marooned on an island before? when we bring up arguments like this,we are no different from lawyers and Pharisees who try to find loopholes to exploit in the law.Why not wait until you are forgotten on an island with your 'intended' before worrying about it?

According to this theory of 'intention to marry',all i need do is convince sister comfort to marry me today,sleep with her and then do same to sister rose next week then sister agatha follows too.

STRONG'S CONCORDANCE is good but it will not replace the bible.My grand mother doesn't speak english,does it mean she's doomed to biblical illiteracy since STRONG has not been translated in my language?

Please for the unmarried among us,if you've seen your mate,just go ahead and legalise it.you dont need to provide rice and drinks for anybody.Go to the registry and settle it.The problem is our modern Christianity that assumes you can't marry until you wear a white gown and suit then stand before a MOG in a fanciful church.You can do it @ home or the court premises.

If you say this to my pagan grand uncle in the village,you'll be very repulsive in his sight and i wonder how the gospel will be preached to him then.

May God help us in our quest for a sweeter and more fulfilling walk with him

okeyxyz: Mehn dis thread don waka go far oo. you guys threw a carnival in my absence abi??

But just to put in my own token, The fornication we all know/assume today is as defined by the law of Moses rather than as defined by the spirit. It was brought back and made mainstream after the catholic church "absorbed" Christianity and redefined it's values with it's pagan and "LAW" traditions. So today, most people who identify as "christians" still subject themselves to the same laws of moses that christ was supposed to have set them free from.

The law declares as unlawful: sex between a man and woman who are not married, but the spirit says: to him that is pure, all things are lawful. That is, to him who understands the true significance of christ's dying and ressurection, he knows that nothing created by god can be a sin.

@Goshen has been saying that you can have sexx with anybody you have agreed to marry, this is true and allowed as that is as far as his conscience allows him to, but i take further that you don't need marriage or a promise of marriage to have s.ex with anybody, as long as you are both single, "adult", and consenting. Sex is a god-given pleasure to be enjoyed, it is a god nature. or everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God(John 16:2 )[/color]

okeyxyz: Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer(2 Corinthians 5:16 )

"flesh" above means human traditions and values as used with the law.

Ihedinobi:

Could you show us where it was said that the pleasure of sexx was available to singles?

That is, we know that Scriptures continually restrict sexx to a married pair - one should enjoy sexx without guilt with one's spouse - but where does it say in the Scriptures that sexx was available to single, consenting adults too?

Bobbysworld28: @okeyxyz is advocating lawlessness. Choi!

Ihedinobi:

Is that right? Is that what it always means? Or is it just in that verse that it means that?

Because 'flesh' in the Scriptures tends to mean 'the unregenerated human nature'.

We'll talk about the law again on another thread.

okeyxyz: Mehn dis thread don waka go far oo. you guys threw a carnival in my absence abi??

But just to put in my own token, The fornication we all know/assume today is as defined by the law of Moses rather than as defined by the spirit. It was brought back and made mainstream after the catholic church "absorbed" Christianity and redefined it's values with it's pagan and "LAW" traditions. So today, most people who identify as "christians" still subject themselves to the same laws of moses that christ was supposed to have set them free from.

[b]The law declares as unlawful: sex between a man and woman who are not married, but the spirit says: to him that is pure, all things are lawful.

okeyxyz:

Read 1 corinthians 7 again, but this time with a mindset of the spirit that I'm gonna show you here:

fornication\sexual immorality means: illicit sex, ie: sex without consent, either of the woman\man or of her husband\wife. Or sex not given with love, ie: because you feel compelled\required to but your emotions do not agree.

Paul says: it is better not to marry, but you assume he's saying: it is better not to have s.ex. And why is this? Because you still read the new testament with a mindset of the law. It is better not to marry simple means: it is better to have s.ex without marriage. Just as Paul and the apostles where doing. We know they were not married but it can't possibly mean they were not having s.ex. You assume they were not having s.ex because the jesus(of the law) you identify with was not having s.ex. And this is how the catholic papacy(and christianity in general) started to glorify celibacy as holy. This is all "LAW" mentality.

Verse 9 says: But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.: Again with a mindset of the law, you interprete self-control and passion as having to do with s.exual urge. passion in this context simply means negative emotions that might arise in a s.exual relationship, eg; jealousy, bitterness as a result of someone else having access to your sex partner, Therefore rendering the s.exual relationship as unlawful\without consent.

So paul recommends: Because of immorality, Let every man stick to his wife and every woman to her husband(1 Corinthians 7 ). Why would he say so?? It implies that prior to this recommendation, they were actually sharing sex partners but some(or most) were habouring bitterness and jealousy because of this, therefore making it s.exual immorality.

Paul says: It is good for a man not to touch a woman(1 Corinthians 7:1 ): Again you interpret "touch" as s.exual activity. "Touch" simply means to "cling to" or to "possess" a woman, in other words to marry a woman.

If you can apply these insights I give, then you'd be able to see revelation of the "New Testament".

okeyxyz: @Goshen has been saying that you can have sexx with anybody you have agreed to marry, this is true and allowed as that is as far as his conscience allows him to, but i take further that you don't need marriage or a promise of marriage to have s.ex with anybody, as long as you are both single, "adult", and consenting.

JeSoul:

I'm going to break with my usual spectatorial mode and inject here...also throwing diplomacy to the wind to match the gravity of the quote above. And for whatever my thoughts are worth...I could not in stronger, firmer, and more emphatic terms condemn the above assertion (without condemning bro Okeyxyz) as a serious manipulation of scripture to fit a very twisted ideology on christian virtue and sexuality.

I won't go into scriptures because anyone can use the bible to back up anything - if you twist scripture hard enough it will fit whatever you say. You don't need a bible to tell you sleeping around and "having s.ex with anybody" is ungodly, sharply inconsistent & thoroughly incompatible with Christ-like values. And the very notion of attempting to justify this with scripture is just honestly ridiculous or worse, a deliberate seduction away from basic christian values that is symptomatic of the depraved times we are in.

Professing christians, Ya'll berra shine your collective eyes. And don't use the freedom from Christ, as a license for immorality.

---

Okeyxyz, please don't construe that^ as an attack. You laid out your beliefs. And in the interest of younger christians reading, witness & balance had to be provided. So that when we all stand before God, there will be no excuse for us all. Especially those of us who added, substracted or performed extrapolations of His otherwise very simple word. Godbless.

okeyxyz:

Read 1 corinthians 7 again, but this time with a mindset of the spirit that I'm gonna show you here:

fornication\sexual immorality means: illicit sex, ie: sex without consent, either of the woman\man or of her husband\wife. Or sex not given with love, ie: because you feel compelled\required to but your emotions do not agree.

Paul says: it is better not to marry, but you assume he's saying: it is better not to have s.ex. And why is this? Because you still read the new testament with a mindset of the law. It is better not to marry simple means: it is better to have s.ex without marriage. Just as Paul and the apostles where doing. We know they were not married but it can't possibly mean they were not having s.ex. You assume they were not having s.ex because the jesus(of the law) you identify with was not having s.ex. And this is how the catholic papacy(and christianity in general) started to glorify celibacy as holy. This is all "LAW" mentality.

Verse 9 says: But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.: Again with a mindset of the law, you interprete self-control and passion as having to do with s.exual urge. passion in this context simply means negative emotions that might arise in a s.exual relationship, eg; jealousy, bitterness as a result of someone else having access to your sex partner, Therefore rendering the s.exual relationship as unlawful\without consent.

So paul recommends: Because of immorality, Let every man stick to his wife and every woman to her husband(1 Corinthians 7 ). Why would he say so?? It implies that prior to this recommendation, they were actually sharing sex partners but some(or most) were habouring bitterness and jealousy because of this, therefore making it s.exual immorality.

Paul says: It is good for a man not to touch a woman(1 Corinthians 7:1 ): Again you interpret "touch" as s.exual activity. "Touch" simply means to "cling to" or to "possess" a woman, in other words to marry a woman.

If you can apply these insights I give, then you'd be able to see revelation of the "New Testament".

ApostlePat: i think the error of goshen is that he knows but should have kept it to himself.not everyone can stand this type of sayings. maybe u need need to mature at before you say somethings or just keep it to yourself.so hel p you god

debosky: This issue is simple, and I will try to paraphrase what I believe Goshen is saying:

By making reference to committed male and female who have committed to get married, and their parents have also consented as not committing fornication, he simply means those individuals are already effectively married, regardless of whether a 'formal' ceremony has occurred or not.

Hence they are not committing fornication in the strictest sense of its biblical usage. This is because they have, to all intents and purposes (minus the 'ceremony') committed themselves to each other - and with their parents' consent.

As a precaution, of course it's reasonable to wait to 'formalise' before sexx, but it is not necessary, just as it isn't necessary (in my view) to wait for 'church' wedding if you've had a traditional wedding for example. Once you've secured parental consent, the marriage is active in my view.

Ultimately the 'determination' of when one is married is, in my view, one that happens between the man and woman. All the other 'formalities' - registry certificate, church wedding, traditional ceremony, etc. are all means to 'protect' people from those that would seek to abuse trust by falsely claiming to 'intend' to marry only to secure sexual favours. It is not those ceremonies, certificates, etc. that 'marry' the individuals, it is the decision taken before that which is only 'formalised'.

In the end, if you do not understand/agree with this view and choose to place greater emphasis on the precautions, then it's perfectly acceptable.

May God continue to teach us and lead us into greater understanding of his word.

Enigma: @Goshen360

If a man and woman commit to one another and decide to marry, then start sleeping with each other, then something happens and they do not get married?

How do we look at the situation?


Later on, if either of them finds another person and they too decide to get married, can they start sleeping with one another?

Bear in mind, that I am very aware of the difficulties of interpretation of both the Greek 'porneia' and the English 'fornication'!

Goshen360:

[size=3pt]Now my stand on 'fornication'.

Religion had defined fornication as sexxual activity between singles (unmarried) ONLY while adultery as sexxual act outside of marriage other than your spouse. That definition is FALSE! We will go into adultery as we go along but let's limit it to fornication as per the OP.

My stand from my study is, fornication is or includes a whole range of sexxual misconduct not connected to single\unmarried persons ONLY but includes married person(s) who engages in adultery, incest, idolatry, lust, harl.otry or who.re\wh.ore.monger(s), pros.titu.tion, best.iality, homo.sex.ual\lesbia.nism etc depending on the context as used in scriptures.

Now, a single\unmarried person CAN commit fornication depending on any of the above mentioned that he\she engages in BUT the whole definition and meaning of 'fornication' DOES NOT APPLY TO OR EXTEND TO two committed singles who are 'faithful' to one another, committed to marrying one another, love one another and intend to spend the rest of their lives with one another having sort approval from both parents even though they haven't gone through the 'ceremonial' or 'formalized' wedding yet.[/size]

CAUTION: Before it gets to this stage, ONE MUST BE ABSOLUTELY SURE THIS IS THE MAN OR THIS IS THE WOMAN FOR HIM\HER otherwise, such will be committing fornication by the act of being a who.re or a who.re.mon.ger. [size=3pt]This is because, the act of truly being married is already concluded in their heart and the marriage is just a mere ceremony as the prove of what took place in their heart. I believe God who sees the heart already sees them as married just the ceremony to formalize them. Hence, I do not see these two people committing fornication as the definition and meanings of fornication from scriptures does not extend to them. That's my stand and we can begin to expand on the above. [/size]