@alwaysTrue: Good points. I have some questions if you please.

Do you accept that it is possible for someone to be legally married and yet God does not approve of their marriage? If so, is sex within that marriage then a defilement of the marriage bed? If so, how do we know which marriages are approved by God?

InesQor: @alwaysTrue: Good points. I have some questions if you please.

Do you accept that it is possible for someone to be legally married and yet God does not approve of their marriage? If so, is sex within that marriage then a defilement of the marriage bed? If so, how do we know which marriages are approved by God?

I will ask a question regarding the 'God approval' part....how do you know God, who respects (note I said respects) convenants, does not approve of that marriage?
What are the proofs of non-approval you know of?

Alwaystrue:

I will ask a question regarding the 'God approval' part....how do you know God, who respects (note I said respects) convenants, does not approve of that marriage?
What are the proofs of non-approval you know of?

God respects covenants that are done in pure motives that align with his own precepts. I believe God will not respect an agreement just because it is an agreement.

For instance it is rather absurd to imagine that God will respect a covenant that contradicts his own plans or covenants, or say a covenant that is instituted by the devil.

Those are just two examples, but generally speaking yes of course it is very possible that people get married and God does not honour their agreement. The same way people do business and God does not honour the agreement, or nations have war covenants or peace treaties and God does not respect it!

Alwaystrue:
What are the proofs of non-approval you know of?

God clearly gave instructions AGAINST marrying from some races in the OT and he punished people who intermarried with them anyway. What other proof do you need that God does not approve of ALL marriages?

InesQor:
God respects covenants that are done in pure motives that align with his own precepts. I believe God will not respect an agreement just because it is an agreement.

For instance it is rather absurd to imagine that God will respect a covenant that CONTRADICTS his own plans or covenants, or say a covenant that is instituted by the devil.

Those are just two examples, but generally speaking yes of course it is very possible that people get married and God does not honour their agreement. The same way people do business and God does not honour the agreement, or nations have war covenants or peace treaties and God does not respect it!

You are yet to give me practical proofs of a 'non-approved' marriage. Also check the highlighted about CONTRADICTS. I like that and that will go a long way in answering your question.
What marriages CONTRADICT the laid-down convenant or agreement by God which God does not approve? I believe you have answers to this since you asked so state which ones you had in mind thst brought about the question?

Alwaystrue:
Thank you. No matter how anyone tries to justify it, the bible is clear. God will force anyone to obey Him that is why we all hvea choice.

Leviticus 21:14
A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people,
Applicable to both men and women though but any woman (man) falls either into:

Widow/widower - Spouse is dead
Divorcee - Been put away
Defiled or raped - forceful
Prostitute - consenting due to lust for money or pleasure or any gain
Wife/Husband - Noone can fault this
Virgin - Kept


I Corinthians 7:8-9
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.
9 But if they cannot exercise SELF-CONTROL, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion

1 Corinthians 7:36
If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.

Self-Control is a fruit of the spirit. Even bethrothals (people set to marry) are told to marry so they do not give in to their passions before time. What more proof is required that the marriage bed should not be defiled for God will judge those who go against His will.
What is the key thing in a wedding...the GIVING AWAY, LEAVING to CLEAVE.

you are wrong, that verse said widow and its not applicable to both but the woman alone, read the bible as it is, stop adding to it jare. All you said up there are your own opinion, you give us a verse and then you explain it to us? Let the verse speak for itself.

Alwaystrue:
You are yet to give me practical proofs of a 'non-approved' marriage. Also check the highlighted about CONTRADICTS. I like that and that will go a long way in answering your question.
What marriages CONTRADICT the laid-down convenant or agreement by God which God does not approve? I believe you have answers to this since you asked so state which ones you had in mind thst brought about the question?

If you are an honest person, you know that the sample space of marriages in the Bible is not THAT LARGE that I will have "practical proofs" of marriages that God did not approve of. It is not as if the Bible is a book on marriages, what we mostly have are precepts and principles. We can't find practical examples for all of them in the Bible! And if I give real-life examples they will be deemed anecdotal.

Thankfully I do have one instance.

In Numbers 25, God praised Phineas for punishing an Israelite prince. And what was the prince's offence? He married a Midianite woman, this was at a time when Midianites were in exile and their women were seeking refuge.

So will you answer my question now?

@Alwaystrue:

And again, in case you missed this:

InesQor:

God clearly gave instructions AGAINST marrying from some races in the OT and he punished people who intermarried with them anyway. What other proof do you need that God does not approve of ALL marriages?

InesQor:

God clearly gave instructions AGAINST marrying from some races in the OT and he punished people who intermarried with them anyway. What other proof do you need that God does not approve of ALL marriages?

So it is still applicable today, isn't it? What fellowship does light have with darkness, can two walk together except they agree, believers and unbelievers (not races) do not mix but Paul still has something to say about that. In the OT the Israelites were like today's believers while other races (gentiles) were unbelievers. Very clear.
So the onus lies on the believer not to mix with the unbeliever, if he or she goes ahead, he/she has already CONTRADICTED God's word (as you said) on that and will bear the consequences. But still that is not grounds for divorce (that is what I meant by 'respect') as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.

InesQor:

If you are a honest person, you know that the sample space of marriages in the Bible is not THAT LARGE that I will have "practical proofs" of marriages that God did not approve of. It is not as if the Bible is a book on marriages. And if I give real-life examples they will be deemed anecdotal.

Thankfully I do have one instance.

In Numbers 25, God praised Phineas for punishing an Israelite prince. And what was the prince's offence? He married a Midianite woman, this was at a time when Midianites were in exile and their women were seeking refuge.

So will you answer my question now?

i bet she cant answer that. Sex is marriage, that is what it is. All those white weddings e.t.c is a man made tradition.

Alwaystrue:
So it is still applicable today, isn't it? What fellowship does light have with darkness, can two walk together except they agree, believers and unbelievers (not races) do not mix but Paul still has something to say about that. In the OT the Israelites were like today's believers while other raves (gentiles) were unbelievers. Very clear.
So the onus lies on the believer not to mix with the unbeliever, if he or she goes ahead, he/she has already CONTRADICTED God's word on that and will bear the consequences. But still that is not grounds for divorce (that is what I meant by 'respect') as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16

To make sure I understand you clearly, are you saying that you believe ALL marriages between two Christians are deemed acceptable by God, but those between a believer and an unbeliever are unacceptable?

Alwaystrue:
So it is still applicable today, isn't it? What fellowship does light have with darkness, can two walk together except they agree, believers and unbelievers (not races) do not mix but Paul still has something to say about that. In the OT the Israelites were like today's believers while other raves (gentiles) were unbelievers. Very clear.
So the onus lies on the believer not to mix with the unbeliever, if he or she goes ahead, he/she has already CONTRADICTED God's word on that and will bear the consequences. But still that is not grounds for divorce (that is what I meant by 'respect') as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16

still your own opinion. Nothing like Unbelievers in the old testament, it was races. This is from the verse you posted in ur previous post.

Leviticus 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people, of his own people, nothing like unbelievers.

All this beating round the bush wears me out. Why can't people answer questions directly?

InesQor:

If you are an honest person, you know that the sample space of marriages in the Bible is not THAT LARGE that I will have "practical proofs" of marriages that God did not approve of. It is not as if the Bible is a book on marriages, what we mostly have are precepts and principles. We can't find practical examples for all of them in the Bible! And if I give real-life examples they will be deemed anecdotal.

Thankfully I do have one instance.

In Numbers 25, God praised Phineas for punishing an Israelite prince. And what was the prince's offence? He married a Midianite woman, this was at a time when Midianites were in exile and their women were seeking refuge.

So will you answer my question now?

If you are patient enough, you will have noted I was online obviously posting or what do you mean by 'If I am an honest person', if you want to go that route there is no point discussing.
I think I have provided enough answers so far, as I can see all you need is someone to answer your every question.

Nahum777: still your own opinion. Nothing like Unbelievers in the old testament, it was races.

Word.

After all there were people like Job in the East who served God diligently and yet was not in the racial line of Abraham. There were people all of the world serving and worshipping God so being a non-Israelite did not DEFINITELY mean you were an unbeliever.

Nuances again.

Nahum777: still your own opinion. Nothing like Unbelievers in the old testament, it was races.

They were called heathen. Not hard to figure.

Alwaystrue:
They were called heathen. Not hard to figure.

Heathens yes, unbelievers? No.

Alwaystrue:
If you are patient enough, you will have noted I was online obviously posting or what do you mean by 'If I am an honest person', if you want to go that route there is no point discussing.
I think I have provided enough answers so far, as I can see all you need is someone to answer your every question.

No offence. I have never discussed with you before. There are some Nairalanders that I have realized are intellectually dishonest i.e. their mode of discussion is very mercurial. Yet others are honest and I enjoy discussing with them.

What made me raise that flag is that here you are asking me for practical examples of something that I believe it is clear that the Bible would usually not give "examples" on. Like me asking for practical examples of where God said you should not beat your wife. Will I be able to produce such a verse? No. What I can show you are precepts and principles.

If you are no longer interested in discussing this, that's fine. Once again, no offence intended.

InesQor:
Word.

After all there were people like Job in the East who served God diligently and yet was not in the racial line of Abraham. There were people all of the world serving and worshipping God so being a non-Israelite did not DEFINITELY mean you were an unbeliever.

Nuances again.

Nah Nah Nah, until the death of Christ all gentiles were heathens, they are still heathens though. I cant type much my battery is down. Off i go, i can see Obadiah viewing this thread. Okay now he will throw more light for sure.

Nahum777: Nah Nah Nah, until the death of Christ all gentiles were heathens.

Where does your timeline place Job then? What about Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab and Ruth? These were all non-Hebrew believers so what is your point, sir?

Nahum777: Heathens yes, unbelievers? No.

It was obvious you did not read my post then but jumped in mid way:
What I was trying to bring out was the link between the races then (demarcated by God's people and Other nations) and believers /unbelievers today....it is not about races but about believing God (Jew or gentile).

InesQor:
Where does your timeline place Job then? What about Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab and Ruth? These were all non-Hebrew believers so what is your point, sir?

All Israelite. I dont know where you got the non-Hebrew stuff from. All the books and Prophets of the bible were all Israelites

"Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." (Acts 28:28).

"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy." (Romans 11:11).

After the death of Christ, they were heathens till after the death of Christ, they were not worshipping God. You are wrong. I will reply your posts later. Low ba3

Alwaystrue:
It was obvious you did not read my post then but jumped in mid way:
What I was trying to bring out was the link between the races then (demarcated by God's people and Other nations) and believers /unbelievers today....it is not about races but about believing God (Jew or gentile).

It is still about races. Maybe you should read your bible with an open mind. Its all about Jacob and Esau and other nations. Thats what the bible is all about, nothing like unbelievers and believers e.t.c.

Nahum777: All Israelite. I dont know where you got the non-Hebrew stuff from. All the books and Prophets of the bible were all Israelites

"Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." (Acts 28:28).

"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy." (Romans 11:11).

After the death of Christ, they were heathens till after the death of Christ, they were not worshipping God. You are wrong. I will reply your posts later. Low ba3

If Job, Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab and Ruth were Israelites then obviously you are not speaking of a geographical Israel. I guess I can understand that your personal religious persuasion allows for a non-geographical worldview on what Israel is or was.

But here we are talking about WORLD RACES so I am talking about a geographical Israel. So, all respect to your religious views but your response detracts from the point I was making.

InesQor:
If Job, Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab and Ruth were Israelites then obviously you are not speaking of a geographical Israel. I guess I can understand that your personal religious persuasion allows for a non-geographical worldview on what Israel is or was.

But here we are talking about WORLD RACES so I am talking about a geographical Israel. So, all respect to your religious views but your response detracts from the point I was making.

Israel is a race, it is a nation. And yes Job was a nation of Israel.

Nahum777: Israel is a race, it is a nation. And yes Job was a nation of Israel.

I see. You have to back this up though.

- What tribe in Israel was he from?
- And where in Israel was called the land of Uz, Job's hometown?

We thankfully know these about the land of Uz; it was attacked by Sabeans and Chaldeans (Job 1:15,17), and one of Job's friends, Eliphaz, came from Teman (Job 4:1), which is in Idumea (also called Edom) thus Uz was most likely in Arabia or in Bashan south of the Damascus. I'll love to see you place it in Israel.

- What about Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab and Ruth? Conveniently ignored in your response?

InesQor:
I see. You have to back this up though.

- What tribe in Israel was he from?
- And where in Israel was called the land of Uz, Job's hometown?

We thankfully know these about the land of Uz; it was attacked by Sabeans and Chaldeans (Job 1:15,17), and one of Job's friends, Eliphaz, came from Teman (Job 4:1), which is in Idumea (also called Edom) thus Uz was most likely in Arabia or in Bashan south of the Damascus. I'll love to see you place it in Israel.

- What about Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab and Ruth? Conveniently ignored in your response?

"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting." (James 1:1).

The Israelites were scattered abroad sir, they still are. God only deals with His people, Israel.

Marraige in the NT is to be btw light and light (two believers) not light and darkness (darkness = unbelievers) but even then, this is d general will of God its broad. In individual cases God could have a more specific will,but it will never violate his general will. E.g among christian suitors God may tell a lady tht her intended choice is not His will for her. She can ignore God's voice and go ahead but she'll regret in d long run. Y? She chose d wrong man.
Yes,he was a christian or claimed to b but GOD knows the future and knows the BEST man for her .
But God doesnt force his will on ppl. If the christian goes ahead and disobeys God's leadg God will only be able to bless use and prosper them only to a limited extent but not to the fullest extent tht wud hav been d case if the christian was fully and completely in His will.
Some blessgs God has ar directly attached to His will and plan 4 d person in question so if d person fails to reach that level he wont enjoy the rewards. E.g if God told abraham to marry sarah as a young man and abraham went 4 a fertility test and discovered sarah was barren and reasoned tht he wouldnt be a grandpa at age x etc and did the "wise" thing , ditched d barren damsel for another contender, he cud hav acheived his goal and God wud hav blessed him as much as He cud but abraham wud never hav been as blessed and prosperous (i dnt mean riches per se) as he cud be outside God's will for his wife: sarah.
He wudnt b d father of many nations,he wudnt b a patrairch,
he wudnt b the father of isreal,
he wudnt b d iconic example of faith, God wudntve established his covenant with him but wud hav to go in search of some1 else.
etc.
He cudve been rich and had many children and thts it.
The wrst of all is abraham wudnt know wat he's lost by not obeyg God's will for a partner.
In summary there's a general will and a specific will of God. The specific is always in harmony with d general but is prtculr to d indvidual in question. Both are needed to enter into d perfect will of God where d best of his blessings are and it applies to marraige too.
Anoda example, isaac was in a barren land, egypt was thrivg economically, coomon sense and reason suggested tht isaac relocate "abroad". Isaac was about to until God spoke to him. God's suggestion looked and sounded foolish - to d rational mind - but Isaac foolishly obeyed God, this obedience ushered Isaac into God's perfect will for his business location, and as a result of Isaac being in d perfect will of God for his business site He reaped supernormal profit. He sowed in the land and in one year reaped a hundred fold. Not one fold or two fold or ten but a hundred . Two fold wudve been a hundred percent returns, one fold wudve been a break even zero returns so a hundred fold return is 10 000 percent returns on initial investment. Cud isaac hav achieved this in egypt ? No. He cudve made some money and been better of thn he was in d barren land but he wudnt be as blessed as he cudve been if he were in d perfect will of God. In egypt he also cudve encountered avoidable difficulties: armed assassins,law suites, accidents etc.

InesQor:

Well said! We should not forget that translations can tend to cause a loss of perspective if one is not careful.

Here's my 2 cents, say we pardon the length.

First, a caveat: there is a pattern in the Bible that tells us about what God really dislikes about sin, and this can help Christians understand it better rather than imagine that God is just trying to kill their fun. These patterns can help understand what the real issue is, here.

The patterns I refer to indicate that sin is generally anything which has the potential to damage your relationship with God. Your relationship with God can be damaged by such things as
(A) a poisoning of your faith, tending to lose your trust in God
(B) a distraction of your focus on spiritual matters, or
(C) being unjust by harming others (that are also loved by God, are they not?)

Now to the matter. He hit the nail on the head, yet I don't fully agree with Goshen360 that "never does it mean pre-marital se.x".
If harlo'try / prosti'tution / ince'st or another form of illegitimate sex is involved in that instance of pre-marital sex, then it is still a fornication. Harlo'try / prosti'tution is a form of illicit i.e. illegitimate sex.

In papyri and other ancient manuscripts, fornication is synonymously used with "disease" or "any active excess of evil", while in the Bible there are 3 definitions of fornication: 2 Hebrew and one Greek.

Biblical definitions of fornication using Strong's Greek and Hebrew Concordances

- (Hebrew 2181) zanah:
to commit adultery (usually on the female, and less often of simple fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment);
fig. To commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of [Yahweh])…
The Complete Word Study of the Old Testament gives more context to the Hebrew zanah in its Lexical Aid as follows: "To fornicate, commit fornication, be a har'lot, play the har'lot, commit adulte'ry; to apostatize, have inte'rcourse with false g-ds or foreigners; to seduce. The main idea is to commit illicit se'xual intercourse, particularly with women. However, this strong image is used in a figurative sense to describe illegal contact between Israel and other nations and their g-ds…"
Summarily, zanah means playing a harlot, illicit sex, marital illicit sex, and idolatry (worship of a person/thing besides God).

- (Hebrew 8457) taznuth:
a type of idolatry
Summarily, forni'cation translated as taznuth is used only once to mean idolatry (Ezekiel 16:29) and there is no other context to compare it to.

- (Greek 4202) por'neia:
from 4203; harl'otry (incl. Adulte'ry and ince'st);
fig. Idolatry: - forni'cation.
Summarily, por'neia often refers to various forms of illicit sex, physically and metaphorically. In 1 Cor 5, Paul asked the Christians to disallow a sin in their assembly. Someone was sleeping with his father's wife, and this was called a fornication. Modern Christians would have called this an adult'ery or inces't but fornication was good enough for Paul to convey his meaning i.e. illicit sex.

In a number of other Biblical instances, fornication refers to engaging with Baal temple prosti'tutes (which is a combination of both physical harlo'try and spiritual harlo'try). In some ancient pagan practices, sex was an integral part of worship activities.

Let's bring it all together.

Fornication broadly has a physical connotation and a metaphorical connotation:
- Physically it refers to various forms of illicit / illegitimate sex. Pedophi'lia, bestia'lity, harlo'try, ra'pe and other Biblical sexu'al restrictions are all included in this definition. As the papyri sources also said, a disease or any active excess of evil.
Generally, this kind of sex is harmful because it is the type of sex that takes advantage and avoids any kind of commitment. It is a sin because of patterns B and C above.
- Metaphorically, fornication refers to harlotry of the soul. This is an illicit connection / coupling with an idol. It's interesting to note that this is the more prevalent fornication that Christians should be worried about, and not the above. That "must see" TV show, that sport that makes you lose yourself, that breathless chase after the newest gadgets in the market, even your child or your job can be an idol that you are forn'icating after, illictly i.e. at the expense of your spiritual development. This one is a sin because of patterns A and B above.

Now, this final point is most certainly controversial. The real question is, when do people get married in God's sight? Is it when they swear in court, or when the bride and groom wear their traditional gear to receive family blessings, or when the pastor "joins them together"? No, those are for the society and for family and for the church, respectively. God knows, either before or AFTER these events, when he chooses to honor their union. People can get married in court, a traditional event or even by a pastor and in God's sight they are not even joined together. Meanwhile others can be unmarried and God accepts them as one. In this case then, having sex with someone that you genuinely love and have positive intentions for (but for some valid reasons are not yet court/traditional/church married to) will not be a sin.

Caveats to the above:
- Personally I do not subscribe to people engaging in no-strings-attached random sex because I believe the act is too intimate to be taken in a noncommital fashion (even your body does not take it with levity e.g. emotional imbalances due to the release of oxytocin in women after sex). Eventually at least one person always gets hurt physically or emotionally, even if it does not manifest for years.
- I also do not subscribe to the type of sex in many modern dating / relationship scenes because it is often as well noncommital. A rule of thumb here is for them to ask themselves, if, say the lady gets pregnant would the man be willing to set aside everything in his life and attend to her, the way he would have done if she was his wife? Or say if either of them had a life-threatening condition or was involved in a terrible accident, would the other do ALL they possibly can to help, the way one would do for a spouse? If the answer is no, then what they have is not yet pure and the sex is noncommital and in my opinion should be considered a sin.
- Also, we have people who set their eyes on someone and desire to have sex with him / her then they scheme their way into the person's heart / life until they end up having that anticipated sex. This will also most likely be noncommital because the person had an aim and now it has been fulfilled, the only way forward is to get more or find another victim. This is definitely illicit then.

I don't know of any verse in the Bible that condemns non-illicit pre-marital sex (the type that does not take advantage and does not avoid commitments), but I feel pastors just discredit pre-marital sex entirely because many people do not have the patience, maturity or understanding to process the various ramifications involved in the act of sex. It's thus easier for Christians just wait until they are in the defined confines of a marriage, to do their thing. As 1 Corinthians 7:9 put it, "...it is better to marry than to burn".

I finally re-iterate, sin is generally anything which has the potential to damage your relationship with God, and your relationship with God can be damaged by such things as
(A) a poisoning of your faith, tending to lose your trust in God
(B) a distraction of your focus on spiritual matters, or
(C) being unjust by harming others (that are also loved by God, are they not?)

Lovely!

Long time no see, my good brother. How market nau?

The truth is that a lot of church dictates regarding sexual relationships today has nothing to do with the original christian doctrines. Most of what we have today(definitions of fornication, prohibition of polygamy, etc) are derived from traditions, through the roman catholic institutions after it officially absorbed christianity.

No where does the original; christian doctrine say that sex without marriage was a sin. It does stipulate faithfulness in marriage for people who choose to marry. Regarding those who choose not to marry, why should they be bound by the marriage law?? The choice not to marry does not in any way translate to the choice not to have sex. Celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with christianity, it is a pagan practice perpetuated by the roman catholic institution under the guise of christianity.

Fornication simply means: either unnatural sex or unlawful(without consent) sex. Simples!! No more, no less.

okeyxyz: The truth is that a lot of church dictates regarding sexual relationships today has nothing to do with the original christian doctrines. Most of what we have today are derived from traditions, through the roman catholic institutions after it officially absorbed christianity.

No where does the original; christian doctrine say that sex without marriage was a sin. It does stipulate faithfulness in marriage for people who choose to marry. Regarding those who choose not to marry, why should they be bound by the marriage law?? The choice not to marry does not in any way translate to the choice not to have sex. Celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with christianity, it is a pagan practice perpetuated by the roman catholic institution under the guise of christianity.

Fornication simply means: either unnatural sex or unlawful(without consent) sex. Simples!! No more, no less.

where did u get ur definition of forncation from.
And in light of ur relaxed view,
if the bible were in this light,how then cud it define sexual immorality and lasciviousness and uncleanness and debauchery which it condemns.
Y does d bible say the christians body houses the Holy spirit and stipulates stiff penalty for its defilement (which many believe includes pre marital sex) ..
If christians want to sleep around and ar tired of d restraint they re free but not try to justify it with the wrd. Mayb fornication means zoophilia, mayb God didnt mean men couldnt marry and the verse against gays needs to b read in context or in latin mayb mayb too many maybes. Its mayb tht made eve pluck the forbidden fruit.

No sin is necessary