is fornication or "sex for the sake of sex" an evil thing or did the "church" make this up?...

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Intrepid, you did not really answer my question but I know where you were coming from. Yes, the Bible (more the New Testament) says these things but there are those that say the "roman church" made a lot of it up. I find that hard to believe in that there is so many places in the New Testament that talk about fornication and sexual immorality being wrong. What i am asking is where do the people that say the church might have made a lot of this up for "control" purposes get their facts on this? I don't think they can produce any facts that say the church made stuff like this up for control.
Seapeople, your reply is more what i was trying to get at in this thread. so thank you. I do in a way agree with you on a lot of what you said, as I felt that way also, but what if there is more to sex then we know and it does have something to do with sin against God, etc.? I have expirenced some things sexually and spiritually and i feel there may be a reason about "sexual immorality" keeping us from moving on to our more spiritual state...




posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
OK, seeing as the RCC came into being almost 300 years after Revelation(last bible book) was written, I'm sure that these restrictions were in place well before the inception of the RCC.

BTW, everything is about control, including the act that we are discussing.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
OK, seeing as the RCC came into being almost 300 years after Revelation(last bible book) was written, I'm sure that these restrictions were in place well before the inception of the RCC.

BTW, everything is about control, including the act that we are discussing.

If you mean the act of making love, then I will have to think about that, cuz the very best lovemaking I can imagine was the result of two people whose biggest turn on is giving pleasure, and when it is clear that it is working and your love is being extremely highly satisfied and pleased by your service, then the feelings are, imho, more than physical, they are from the soul. If both lovers know each others tastes and desires completely, and strive to achieve an ever improving way of accomplishing them, and they are both successful in that quest, then it is heaven.
And if it is about control, then it is about controlling oneself, and using discipline and willpower to extend that union as long as one possibly can.
It is only about controlling the other person if the person is insecure and needs that false, and temporary, sense of possession that they get by controlling another. It is not a part of the kind of lovemaking that I am referring to. That kind of love is all about serving the one you cherish with all your might, and finding great joy in that pursuit.
What do you think?



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I think you've got "control" mixed up with "controlling". Two totally seperate entities.

Seeing as this IS part of the original question, we can continue with this but to do so, can I ask what part of the world you live in?



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_one
This is a topic that really bothers me as I was told that only the church made up the notion that sex for the sake of sex was wrong and that the Bible does not say much about it.


From a Biblical perspective, it seems pretty clear that sex outside marriage is condemned (fornication and adultery anyway).

But since the church made up the Bible, then the church did make up these "sins".

You are free to decide for yourself what is "right" and "wrong". You are only bound to the commands of thousands-of-years-old books of mythology if you choose to be.

That said, think carefully before you have sex. Are you exposing someone else to a disease without telling them? Shame on you. Are you risking pregnancy without thinking it through? Shame again. Are you just being stupid and not considering these risks to because it's inconvenient to consider them? Live with the consequences.

If you and your partner are willing to accept the risks, and are honest with eachother, then what difference does it make what sun-stroked illiterate goat herders had to say about it thousands of years ago?



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Spamandham, thanks for the words of wisdom. They eluded me and may be apt.




posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
The question is; is fornication or "sex for the sake of sex" an evil thing or did the "church" make this up?... The context of the question was geared specifically toward those believing that “the church’ whatever entity that may mean, is responsible for this declaring sex outside of marriage as evil. Fornication is after all what sex outside of marriage would be.

The answer is very possibly yes, Christian domination was significant and far reaching, sanctioned by the Christian dominated ruling parties in teh Christian dominated parts of the world, with measures against sexual sin that included some very draconian punishments.

Since we know that the OT condoned multiple wives, not husbands, and we also know that during Jesus’ lifetime and well after he was dead, Jewish males, did have their little harems as did their forefathers. All of Herod’s sons for example continued this practice, we know that polygamy in the Christian ruled world met its end.

As far as the OT treatment of sexual immorality, the codes can be found in Leviticus. Unmarried women engaging in sex was a punishable crime, as were most incestual relationships, but nowhere did it disallow polygamy by males, and polygamy was understood to be protected from the charge of adultery as long as the man or woman was married to each other.

My esteemed co-member Blackguard has told you the truth with regard to the ownership of women, but s/he is being met with contempt. Women to this day in some societies are given away still, while in the Christian dominated western society, the practice has not died, and perhaps some of you are too young to know that which s/he speaks is truth, but it is only within the last 25 years or so some women refuse to repeat the “I obey’” vow, but the ritual of the woman being given away comes from ownership being passed from a male to a male. It matters not if the father is doing the giving away. Likewise, it was not so long ago that women could not own property, and could not receive credit unless her husband had approved same.

That is called ownership, there is no diplomatic way to pussyfoot around that meaning.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Very apt Somewhereinbetween. I've experienced it in recent years. When we bought our house my credit was #e, hers wasn't but to do it I had to sign that it was OK for her to do it in this way (I'm the major earner). Would that have been the same the other way? I doubt it.

BTW, we did it differently, her Mother gave her away. Still clinging to outdated practices but, hell, we're learning.

Nice post BTW.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
You would have to ask a linguist when the change actually occurred. But I can share what I know.

The Hebrew root word "zanah" is one who causes adultery i.e. a harlot or a prostitute.

Hebrew to Greek = porneia

The Greek "porneia" originally refered to prostitution.

The Greek to Latin = fornicare

The Latin "Fornicare" originally refered to having intercourse with prostitutes.

The Latin to English = Fornicate

The English word "Fornicate" is to have sex outside of wedlock.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
You would have to ask a linguist when the change actually occurred. But I can share what I know.

The Hebrew root word "zanah" is one who causes adultery i.e. a harlot or a prostitute.

Hebrew to Greek = porneia

The Greek "porneia" originally refered to prostitution.

The Greek to Latin = fornicare

The Latin "Fornicare" originally refered to having intercourse with prostitutes.

The Latin to English = Fornicate

The English word "Fornicate" is to have sex outside of wedlock.


Correct.... Fornication in context means "the selling of sex", that is to say, "prostitution." The rabbis did attempt to move away from the concept that women are merely chattel (property) and instituted the use of a marriage contract, called a "ketubah."

"The ketubah spells out the husband's obligations to the wife during marriage, conditions of inheritance upon his death, and obligations regarding the support of children of the marriage. It also provides for the wife's support in the event of divorce."


Despite this advancement in female rights.... According to Jewish Law a married man can have sex with an unmarried woman and not be guilty of adultery. If a married man has sex with another man's wife, then both are guilty of adultery. A married woman on the other hand, because she is considered property (first, belonging to her father and then to her husband) may not have sex with anyone other than her husband and, of course, if she does, then she is guilty of adultery.

Provided a man (married or not) doesn't pay for sex ... he isn't guilty of engaging in the act of prostitution (i.e., fornication). Of course, many guys will retort, "We all pay for it one way or another."
For more on the Jewish take ... you can go here:

www.jewfaq.org...

[edit on 5-6-2005 by smadewell]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Hi Humbled_one.....

Concerning sex outside of marriage or Fornication......it is a pleasure(passion) of the satisfaction of the flesh.

It is not a ''non forgivable sin'' as there is no sin that God cannot forgive you if you truly repent of.

The carnal mind is enmity against God. (Rom. 8:7)

quote//
St. Athanasius the Great comments on Psalm 50 in the same spirit:

God's original intention was that we give birth not through marriage and corruption; the violation of the commandment introduced marriage as a result of Adam's transgression, i.e., as the result of falling away from the commandment given to him by God. (Collection of Works [in Russian], vol. 4, p. 175)

www.orthodoxinfo.com...

The Struggle With Passions........
www.orthodoxinfo.com...

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,
but against principalities,
against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Eph. vi. 12)

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood "....we wrestle against unseen powers which is the Devil and demons tempting us....

Live then according to the Spirit, "and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof" (Rom. xiii. 14).....When God became Man He came to destroy the CURSE that was on man(being from the tree )and Christ was Crucified in order that the CURSE be destroyed...so by the CROSS we are saved ...but ONLY if we desire it.....this is the long and narrow path that Christ spoke of.....He never said it was easy.

The Church—The Treasury of Salvation..........
www.orthodoxinfo.com...


Fr. Thomas Hopko, Dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, states that:
"For being God,
he became man, and being man, he became a slave; and being a slave, he became dead and not only dead, but dead on a cross.
From this deepest degradation of God flows the eternal exaltation of man. According to the scriptures,
man’s sins and the sins of the whole world are forgiven and pardoned by the sacrifice of Christ,
by the offering of His life-His body and His blood, which is ‘the blood of God’ (Acts 20:28)—upon the cross.
This is the ‘redemption,’ the ‘ransom,’ the ‘expiation,’ the ‘propitiation’ spoken about in the scriptures which had to be made so that man could be ‘at one’ with God.
Christ ‘paid the price’ which was necessary to be paid for the world to be pardoned and cleansed of all iniquities and sins (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23)" [83].

Salvation By Christ: A Response to the Credenda/Agenda.......
www.orthodoxinfo.com...
IX
helen

Hope you like reading....



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I agree also with somewhereinbetween,

Helens also have a nice Christian view of it.

How sex was made a sin, well many Christians have to struggle with the same problem of understanding the issue of religion, sex and sin.

If you take Jews the group that Jesus actually belongs too, like Somewhereinbetween said they have not a problem with their sexual issues, their views were more full and open than most Christians of the time, the Greek’s views of sex were adopted by Christians of the time alone with St. Augustine, he preached that mad sex was totally evil even if it was part of marriage.

He was the one that brought up that sex was only for procreation, Jesus never said anything about sex or preached about sex, perhaps because he was comfortable with the Jewish open views of it.

After all they were polygamists.

Sex is not a disease is a gift from God, if you go by these assumptions of Jesus been quiet about sexual matters in his teachings.

Now in the moral stand point sex is not something to be used careless we already know what promiscuity and sexual deviation does to society.

Because the importance of Emperor Constantine on the birth of Christianity as the new religion to be followed, he had a lot to do with how the new testament and the bible were shaped to control the empire struggles with its people in his days.

St. Augustine had a lot of influences on the shaping of the views of sex at the time.

Whatever the church said was the law, sex was reduced to a dirty act, and only for procreation, Celibacy was the standard for the men of the cloth and because sex was a sin everybody needed the church for repentance because after all most people did have sex even in a time when it was declare a sin and dirty.

Sexual morality did not come from the teachings of Jesus but from the creation of the church, so yes “THE CHURCH MADE IT ALL UP”

This link is a great link to understand the influence of the Church in shaping the sexuality.

It’s actually a Christian site for more “liberated Christians”. If you are a hard core christian follower then it maybe out of your way of thinking.

Good luck.

www.libchrist.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043Jesus never said anything about sex or preached about sex, perhaps because he was comfortable with the Jewish open views of it.

After all they were polygamists.

Sex is not a disease is a gift from God, if you go by these assumptions of Jesus been quiet about sexual matters in his teachings.


With all due respect, Marg6043, your statement isn't entirely correct....

Christendom is largely ignorant of the fact that there were two main schools of Pharisaic thought during the Common Era -- to say nothing of the other Jewish sects of that period.

The Pharisees (Separatists) were divided along socio-religio-economic and even geographic lines.

The School of Hillel, which had a foothold in the Galilee, frequently took a more liberal approach to Jewish Law and championed the cause of the plebeians from whom many of their scholars - like Yeshua (aka Jesus) - arose. The Hillelites and their associates among the Chasidim (Pious Ones) were not of the opinion that Gentiles were inherently "unclean". Further, they were soundly against polygamy and the abuses of women and children that arose out of this practice - which is why Yeshua (Jesus) always speaks of WIFE in the singular. Nevertheless, the School of Hillel had a liberal view toward divorce and expanded the reasons a husband could divorce his wife, yet they were strong supporters of women's rights being outline in the pre-nuptial marriage contract called a ketubah. (See my post above).

The School of Shammai, which had a foothold in Judea, frequently took a stricter, more conservative, approach to Jewish Law and they championed the cause of the provincials and patricians from whom most of their scholars arose. The Shammaites and their associates among the Zealots believed that Gentiles were in fact inherently "unclean".

Further, the Shammaites espoused polygamy and used it as a tool to expand their familial and business connections - not unlike the rich of just about every age and culture. Accordingly, the Shammaites held that the minimum age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls; however, the kiddushin (betrothal, that is to say, the exchange of money and the signing of the marriage contract) can take place before that. Nevertheless, the Shammaites took a hard-line where divorce was concerned and like the Essenes ... they frowned upon the Hillelites liberal stance on divorce.

So, Yeshua (Jesus) agreed with the Shammaite (and Essene) ruling which held that the only just cause for divorce was adultery, which could also be interpreted as idolatry, that is to say, "whoring after another god". While at the same time he opposed the practice of polygamy.

In fact, Yeshua (Jesus) frequently clashed with the Shammaite Separatists (Pharisees) and lambasted this school for their hypocrisy, etc. He also chided the Essenes for their “withdrawal” from Jewish affairs. In most respects Yeshua (Jesus) appears to be in agreement with the School of Hillel and/or their associates among the "Pharisaic" Chasidim (Pious Ones).

If Christians knew more about the history and culture of the Common Era, especially with regard to all the intrigue and wrangling that went on between the Shammaites and Hillelites, they might come to have a better understanding of the historical person – Yeshua ben Yosef.

[edit on 5-6-2005 by smadewell]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Yes, I agree that is more to Jesus and Jesus as a "human of none divine birth" I have read about him very much.

But you understand that by Christian standard this is not the "Jesus" of the bible believes so anything that doesn't fall on bible teachings is not part of the "divine Jesus" of the bible.

You understand what I am talking about right?

When it comes to Christan's if is not in the bible then is must not be true.

So when referring to Jesus as a Jew we need to stick as close to the bible as we can, even when most of us knows from were and how the new testament and the story of the "Divine Jesus" comes from.

Many would love nothing more than to keep the "divine entity" as far away from humanity and Jewish connection as possible but we know is almost impossible.

Good post in and very informative.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes, I agree that is more to Jesus and Jesus as a "human of none divine birth" I have read about him very much.

But you understand that by Christian standard this is not the "Jesus" of the bible believes so anything that doesn't fall on bible teachings is not part of the "divine Jesus" of the bible.

You understand what I am talking about right?

When it comes to Christan's if is not in the bible then is must not be true.

So when referring to Jesus as a Jew we need to stick as close to the bible as we can, even when most of us knows from were and how the new testament and the story of the "Divine Jesus" comes from.

Many would love nothing more than to keep the "divine entity" as far away from humanity and Jewish connection as possible but we know is almost impossible.

Good post in and very informative.


Thanks! And yes, I agree.... Christians have got this "That ain't in my Bible" chip on their shoulder. Anything remotely seeking a balanced and/or proper historical, linguistic and cultural context is dismissed out of hand, especially if it "ain't in the Word" and comes from "somethin' written by men" and doesn't jive with their Jesus (the Godman) theology. :bnghd: :shk:



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I understand what you both are saying about traditions and customs at the time, but what I have a problem with is when people say Jesus said things or did things that were not recorded in the Bible. Is this what you are trying to say? I have done research beforehand and other then the bible I don't think there is any other sources out there that even state anything about Jesus saying or doing anything. If there are , then please send the links.
Now what we are talking about with Jesus is a little off the main question i asked, but it goes along with what i am trying to say about people making claims but not having any sources or proof to back them up. i am not saying you are right or wrong and maybe i even misunderstood what you are both were saying.
It's like the Da Vinci Code book. So many people just go and take it and believe that everyhting in it is true. Yet when you do actual research on the claims, there really does not seem to be as much "proof" out there as the author tries to make it look like.
What i am trying to figure out is why sex (if not married) seems to be such a horrible sin. I persoanlly feel it may be because it takes us further away from God spiritually as ex is mainly about the carnal flesh desires which really do not have anything to do with spirit. I am not really talking about 2 people in love, i am talking about the way most of the world is in that people are always looking for sex or to "get some". Peoples attitudes on sex is not much different then what is portrayed in pornography, it seems to be all just about "f**cking" and their is no love or anything spiritual about it. I forget how many times it is said a man thinks about sex everyday, but it is probably more then he thinks about God. It seems that people are becoming more and more loose about sex and less spiritual. Espcially online porn and how many are addicted to it. How can you pray to God after looking at all the porn out there and not have those images burned into your mind as you are praying?



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_one
I understand what you both are saying about traditions and customs at the time, but what I have a problem with is when people say Jesus said things or did things that were not recorded in the Bible. Is this what you are trying to say?


Well, before I address the heart of your question, let's tighten up this loose end.

Imagine for a moment that all we knew of the American Civil War - whether by personal choice or via what the powers-that-be allowed us access to - were the letters authored by Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. How limited in scope and how skewed and how riddled with holes would our knowledge of the Civil War be, if that were the case?

Further, what if the only exponents and/or stewards of the letters of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were the NAACP, on the one hand, and the Ku Klux Klan, on the other. How distorted would our understanding of the Civil War be, if that were the case?

I'd personally have a problem with this sort of approach to understanding the American Civil War! I'm sure many would agree.... And yet, isn't this the very approach that many take when seeking to understand Jesus (aka Yeshua) ... ?

My point is this.... Anyone who is earnestly interested in seeking to understand Jesus (aka Yeshua) and his teachings ought to be willing to set aside their preconceptions - whatever the origins - and view the man in light of his own historical, linguistic and cultural context. Otherwise what you'll end up with is picture that's as incomplete and slanted as my Civil War example above.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
OK, seeing as the RCC came into being almost 300 years after Revelation(last bible book) was written, I'm sure that these restrictions were in place well before the inception of the RCC.


Jesus founded the catholic church. It was the name Catholic that came 300 years later.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_oneI have done research beforehand and other then the bible I don't think there is any other sources out there that even state anything about Jesus saying or doing anything. If there are , then please send the links.


Well, the gospels and the writings of the apostles are the cheif source for our knowledge of Yeshua (aka Jesus), but there is also Josephus, the Gnostic Literature, the Talmud and the so-called "Other Gospels" to consider.

Nevertheless, I think the "cannonical" gospels and writings of the apostles AND an understanding of the rabbinic literature are one's best bet for understanding the historical person, IF one takes the time to study these writings in light of their proper historical, linguistic and cultural context. Much of what Yeshua (Jesus) had to say is mirrored in the rabbinic literature.

To that end.... There are a number of books that I've found most useful:

- JESUS by David Flusser
- Jewish Sources in Early Christianity by David Flusser
- Who Crucified Jesus? by Solomon Zeitlin
- Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times and Teachings by Joseph Klausner
- Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus by David Bivin & Roy Blizzard
- Jesus the Jew by Geza Vermes
- What Crucified Jesus?: Messianism, Pharisaism, and the Development of Christianity by Ellis Rivkin
- The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith by Louis Finkelstein
- Jesus the Jewish Theologian by Brad H. Young
- Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus by Harvey Falk
- Everyman's Talmud by A. Cohen

And for those with an ecumenical bend, that is to say, those interested in Jewish-Christian dialogue, I would strongly recommend the following:

- What Christians Should Know About Jews and Judaism by Yechiel Eckstein
- The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective by Pinchas Lapide
- Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism by Dennis Prager & Joseph Telushkin

And for our hardcore Catholics.... It wouldn't hurt them any to obtain a copy of the following and READ it:

- Tractate on the Jews: The significance of Judaism for Christian faith by Franz Mussner



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by humbled_oneWhat i am trying to figure out is why sex (if not married) seems to be such a horrible sin. I persoanlly feel it may be because it takes us further away from God spiritually as sex is mainly about the carnal flesh desires which really do not have anything to do with spirit.... I forget how many times it is said a man thinks about sex everyday, but it is probably more then he thinks about God. It seems that people are becoming more and more loose about sex and less spiritual. Especially online porn and how many are addicted to it. How can you pray to God after looking at all the porn out there and not have those images burned into your mind as you are praying?


Wow! You've given this a lot of thought and brought up some interesting points. As to online porn.... Fantasy is always going to win out over reality. Frustration and conflict tend to trigger our escape mechanism and fantasy offers an easy out or outlet as the case maybe.

The trick, I suppose, is to have a "real life" outlet (i.e., a loving partner). I'm married now and building a home and a family does wonders to curb the old sex drive. LOL! Idle hands are the Devil's workshop, so ... making yourself too pooped to pop is the only sure fire answer to sexual addiction that I'm aware of.


I don't know.... I've been so desensitized by the media that the "kink factor" in porn just doesn't do much for me. Of course, I'm not the randy 18 year old I use to be.
Also, I'm turned off by how the media attempts to insult my intelligence with their "wiggle and jiggle" ads. :shk:

As for sex outside of marriage being a "horrible sin".... I think we have Augustine (355-430), Bishop of Hippo, to blame for this, in as much as he is the architect of the Church's system of sexual thought -- not to mention the teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274).

Augustine virtually equated "original sin" with "venereal concupiscence" - so that every child can be said literally to have been conceived in the "sin" of its parents. This, of course, is not the approach to sexuality espoused by Judaism! Thank Heaven!

"A slight modification of the Augustinian theory was introduced by Gregory the Great, who reigned as Pope Gregory I from 590 to 604. In his view, the evil element in coitus is to be found not in the act itself nor in the concupiscence (i.e., strong sexual desire) which impels it, but in the peculiar sensual pleasure (voluptus carnis) which accompanies it. The {delight} incidental even to lawful intercourse is always sinful; how much more so when the couple's dominant motive is not procreational. For Gregory, coital evil lies not in the inordinate impulse of concupiscence but in the acquiescence of the will in the enjoyment thereof....

Aquinas located the seat of 'coital evil' not in the act itself, nor in concupiscence, nor yet in venereal pleasure, but in what he regarded as the act's inevitable irrationality. As Augustine, influenced by Platonic dualism, had viewed with suspicion anything deflecting from contemplation of the Eternal, so Aquinas, equally inspired by Aristotle's doctrine of the golden mean, found an element of evil in whatever disturbed the exercise of the rational faculty.

In the final determination of the Scholastics, coital pleasure was not sinful as such, but it could not be pursued for its own sake without sin: within marriage the sin was always venial; outside of marriage, it was mortal."*

So, that's why sex outside of marriage is such a "horrible sin." Why? Because the Church tells us it is.


* - excerpt from David M. Feldman's book "Marital Relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law" (pg. 84).

{ } = my attempt to replace Feldman's $10 words.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join