Is fornication sinful?

[Meursault]

Again, my impression is that the Pauline epistles are more or less explicit in holding that believing Jews will be saved, and that the vast majority of fundies believe this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Again, my impression is that the Pauline epistles are more or less explicit in holding that believing Jews will be saved, and that the vast majority of fundies believe this.

Yeah, I've always been confused as to why this is a point of controversy even among people with limited, conservative soteriologies.

[Meursault]

"I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is God's power of salvation for everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then also to the Gentile."
- Romans 1:16

Which begs the question why Muslims should not also get a pass, being Abrahamist co-religionists.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If I believed in Hell, I'd think it would make far more sense to condemn people to Hell for not believing in God rather than for being Jewish or Muslim - or for being of any theistic religion for that matter, even those "heathenish pagan Gods."

Last night I tried digging up an old Pew poll on the number of Christians who believe in people of other faiths attaining salvation, but instead I found an article on a religion-related website denouncing that poll for faulty questioning, so I didn't bring it up.  Still, if I were to assume I'd say that most Christians, even the most conservative types, don't believe that all Jewish people are going to Hell.

[Simfan34]

Ernest, how do you reconcile your view that it is not sinful with what is in the Bible?

Furthermore I feel abstinence shows a certain maturity- after all, isn't self-denial and restraint part of maturity? For the same reason one would not eat a cake if you were trying to lose weight, or even on any occasion.

Simple, I don't have to reconcile that because that's not my view.  My view is not that fornication is not sinful, but that relationships that under our legal system are today considered fornication would not be considered fornication but a form of marriage back when not all marriages were sanctified by either the state or a church.

If I was dating someone, how would this be construed as marriage?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ernest, how do you reconcile your view that it is not sinful with what is in the Bible?

Furthermore I feel abstinence shows a certain maturity- after all, isn't self-denial and restraint part of maturity? For the same reason one would not eat a cake if you were trying to lose weight, or even on any occasion.

Simple, I don't have to reconcile that because that's not my view.  My view is not that fornication is not sinful, but that relationships that under our legal system are today considered fornication would not be considered fornication but a form of marriage back when not all marriages were sanctified by either the state or a church.

If I was dating someone, how would this be construed as marriage?

I believe Ernest may be referring to common-law marriage in the sense of long-term cohabitation, the sort a couple might settle into if they 'don't believe in' or are apathetic about legal marriage, or are of the same sex in a jurisdiction or religion where that's not recognized, or some other situation of that kind.

[Simfan34]

Interesting. Where does the line fall though? Non-cohabitation? Relative brevity? A one-night stand?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ernest said on the first page that he considers one-night stands to be for the purpose of mere sexual satisfaction only.  I don't think he takes an entirely laissez-faire approach to sex like you seem to think he does, Simfan.

[Simfan34]

Yes, but where does he (or you or one in general) draw the line?

I mean, do I want to engage in casual activity? Sure? Do I want to have a nice big slice of chocolate cake? Yes. Do I want to sleep until two in the afternoon? Of course. But does that make any of that the right thing to do? No.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes, but where does he (or you or one in general) draw the line?

I mean, do I want to engage in casual activity? Sure? Do I want to have a nice big slice of chocolate cake? Yes. Do I want to sleep until two in the afternoon? Of course. But does that make any of that the right thing to do? No.

For me, personally?  I've already explained my opinion on this a few pages ago.  Christians need to be circumspect of pronouncements of harm when there's no clear evidence of harm.  But, that should not be taken as a blanket rule on all things involving sex.  If you are thoughtlessly promiscuous, the chances of having to face severe physical or mental consequences are considerably high, and I don't think one would dispute that regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.  My rule of thumb, though I am still a virgin and plan to be for a very long time for personal reasons, is that one is always better off not being promiscuous.  That will make you far more likely to live a happy and healthy life.

You and Ernest are obviously far different from each other when it comes to theology.  That's fine.  But, you can't tell someone that what they are doing is wrong simply because it doesn't align with your lifestyle or subjective beliefs.  You cannot tell someone that they aren't playing by the rules when they're playing an entirely different board game.  Maybe you aren't doing that, and if you're only pressing Ernest on this to get his perspective, that's fine.  But, sex is largely about power, and I think that trying to force someone to abstain from sex is not much better than forcing someone to engage in sex.

(Now obviously, I find the latter much more traumatizing than the former, but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to convey.)

[Simfan34]

I mean there is the "gut" feeling of it being wrong. But then there is the strong, if not completely unambiguous, scriptural support for its sinfulness. Looking at that way, we are really all playing the same "game" here, and attempting to deal in absolutes.

I mean it's very easy to say on the face of it that consensual, casual sex is "harmless" provided one is safe about it. But the idea of something being morally acceptable simply because both parties consent to it is something completely abhorrent- it isn't a morality at all but rather a total relativism.

So there are two things working against it- the first being a feeling of maturity and morality associated with the self-denial and restraint of abstinence, and the clear Biblical condemnation. Indeed, it almost seems like the ultimate temptation, a flagrant invitation to sin. And perhaps a rather personal third- a wholesale perception of the whole thing being exceptionally vulgar.

But I mean, there is no escaping it!- it is wrong. Completely and totally wrong. And yet here we are, with wild urges. One has to ensure he is not "carried away and enticed by his own lust." (James 1:14)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I mean there is the "gut" feeling of it being wrong. But then there is the strong, if not completely unambiguous, scriptural support for its sinfulness. Looking at that way, we are really all playing the same "game" here, and attempting to deal in absolutes.

I mean it's very easy to say on the face of it that consensual, casual sex is "harmless" provided one is safe about it. But the idea of something being morally acceptable simply because both parties consent to it is something completely abhorrent- it isn't a morality at all but rather a total relativism.

So there are two things working against it- the first being a feeling of maturity and morality associated with the self-denial and restraint of abstinence, and the clear Biblical condemnation. Indeed, it almost seems like the ultimate temptation, a flagrant invitation to sin. And perhaps a rather personal third- a wholesale perception of the whole thing being exceptionally vulgar.

But I mean, there is no escaping it!- it is wrong. Completely and totally wrong. And yet here we are, with wild urges. One has to ensure he is not "carried away and enticed by his own lust." (James 1:14)

It's wrong to you, yes.  You've established your opinion well.  In fact, I commend you for acting according to what you genuinely believe is right and confessing your struggles in upholding those values.  However, everyone does not simply understand scripture, or the way it should be applied, the same way you do.  So, for that reason, you and Ernest are not playing the same "game."  That's not to say there are no moral absolutes - Ernest never denied that there is, in fact, 'right' and 'wrong' - but, you each have your own understanding on what those moral absolutes are.

Even those who say that you should not interpret the Bible based on your own understanding don't truly understand what they are talking about.  No one has a "God's eye view" of reality, so by our very nature we are tethered to our biases and cultural influences.  At the end of the day, you need to find peace in the fact that you may be wrong.  And, of course, as a Protestant, I do not believe that the law is what saves you, but I do believe that the formula for living a wholesome life is available to all those who seek it.  That formula need not be available only to those who go to my church every Sunday.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Simfan, I think you're being led astray a bit by translation rot caused by the changing English language.  Back when the KJV was being written, "lust" did not refer to just erotic desires, or even principally to them but referred to any and all sort of desires. In the KJV, lust refers equally to casual sex and chocolate cake. (Save of course where the context limits it to a particular type of desire, but the quote you made from James refers to general desire.)  But as I see it, the sin isn't casual sex, it's sex of any type in a casual relationship.  A committed relationship in which two people join to form one flesh is to my eyes a marriage, and that can be true if the united pair engages in formal sex, casual sex, or no sex at all.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ernest, out of curiosity - would you consider having sex with any more than one person, at any given period, immoral?  In other words, is a person who falls out of what was a committed relationship and establishes a similar relationship with another person acting wrongly?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It depends on what caused the first relationship to collapse, Scott.  If it was because of lust for another, then yes.  If it collapsed for other reasons, then no.

[DC Al Fine]

It depends on what caused the first relationship to collapse, Scott.  If it was because of lust for another, then yes.  If it collapsed for other reasons, then no.

I'm not sure I follow. Given your common-law definition of marriage, leaving such a relationship seems like it would violate Jesus' teachings on divorce.

[Simfan34]

Ernest- I feel my point still stands if we translate "lust" as "desire". (Also, it's the revised American). One must resist being carried away by desires of any sort, whether they be sexual or culinary.

The fact is your definition of marriage is drastically different from mine. So I think that's whence the disagreement stems.

But then again you go to a UU church, do you not?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well played Xahar, well played.

[Lurker]

The result here is quite surprising. If you asked the same question to a simillar demographic (i.e., youngish, western males, mostly well-educated) in the "real world", the answer would probably be 90%+ "no".

[Simfan34]

Well, I'm sure that's the majority opinion here as well- just that not a lot of people are taking part.

[Never]

Well, I'm sure that's the majority opinion here as well- just that not a lot of people are taking part.

Possibly, there could be people here who automatically assumed that there was nothing to debate on fornication being a sin and simply didn't participate, but Atlas seems to be a very liberal discussion board on social issues...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Well, I'm sure that's the majority opinion here as well- just that not a lot of people are taking part.

Well, a plurality of the board is non-religious and most members are sadly uninterested in anything having to do with religion beyond what biased sources want them to perceive it as, so "sin" isn't even a concept to most people.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It depends on what caused the first relationship to collapse, Scott.  If it was because of lust for another, then yes.  If it collapsed for other reasons, then no.

I'm not sure I follow. Given your common-law definition of marriage, leaving such a relationship seems like it would violate Jesus' teachings on divorce.

Keep in mind the time and place of his ministry.  It was a strongly androcentric society in which marriage was not a union of equals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The way I interpret those verses, if a man divorces a woman who still loves him, he is causing her to commit adultery not because of what she does with some other man, but because of the desire she still has for the man who divorced her.  The relationship may have ended for him, but it still exists for her, and if because of her economic circumstances, she is forced into seeking another marriage despite her continuing attachment to he who legally is her ex-husband, then he who marries such a divorced woman is committing adultery because in her heart, she is still married to her ex.

[dead0man]

You test drive a car before you buy it don't you?  You take a good look at a house before you buy it don't you?  A spouse is much more important than either of those, you have to take it for a spin around the block, kick the tires, take it to a knowledgeable buddy so he can give it a good going over.  Ok, maybe not the last one.

[bedstuy]

You test drive a car before you buy it don't you?  You take a good look at a house before you buy it don't you?  A spouse is much more important than either of those, you have to take it for a spin around the block, kick the tires, take it to a knowledgeable buddy so he can give it a good going over.  Ok, maybe not the last one.

Maybe some people here are more worried about their prospective wife kicking their tires.