What is fornication?

[The Revolting Man]

If only scripture would just say any of that. Why, oh why, didn’t God consult the forum, or at least Rome, before He wrote the Bible?

 

[FollowingHim]

If only scripture would just say any of that. Why, oh why, didn’t God consult the forum, or at least Rome, before He wrote the Bible?

Because scripture doesn't say marriage at all. We all agree on that. So God NEVER wrote that "marriage" = "one flesh", nor that it didn't. He never defined the word "marriage".

So how we use the word is up to us.

This whole thing is an argument about the definition of a single English word. If we remove the word "marriage" and just talk about the components - one flesh and ownership - I think we all basically agree on everything. The only disagreement is on the definition of a word that is not defined or even used in scripture.

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

Why are we arguing about this?

We just have to use whatever words are clearest to communicate things in a given setting. Sometimes the clearest word may be "marriage", sometimes "one flesh", sometimes something else. Just use what the hearer will best understand.

So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Because scripture doesn't say marriage at all. We all agree on that. So God NEVER wrote that "marriage" = "one flesh", nor that it didn't. He never defined the word "marriage".

So how we use the word is up to us.

This whole thing is an argument about the definition of a single English word. If we remove the word "marriage" and just talk about the components - one flesh and ownership - I think we all basically agree on everything. The only disagreement is on the definition of a word that is not defined or even used in scripture.

Why are we arguing about this?

We just have to use whatever words are clearest to communicate things in a given setting. Sometimes the clearest word may be "marriage", sometimes "one flesh", sometimes something else. Just use what the hearer will best understand.

What? When did all this happen? The disagreement has always been that I claim one flesh is the only bond that exists between a man and a woman and everyone else claims that there has to be something else, like a covenant or something.

In fact I can substitute one flesh and marriage because I don’t accept that there is a difference. It’s every one else that has to find some additional phrase to describe a state of being that isn’t described in scripture.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Because scripture doesn't say marriage at all. We all agree on that. So God NEVER wrote that "marriage" = "one flesh", nor that it didn't. He never defined the word "marriage".

This claim is just ridiculous. He defined the Adam and Eve’s relationship as one flesh and He described the state that was dissolved by divorce as one flesh. Of course He defined one flesh. It’s just no one wants to accept what that means for them personally.

 

[FollowingHim]

I still believe we disagree far less than you think @The Revolting Man, and it truly is just a misunderstanding centred on words. But I could be wrong. To try and figure this out, do you disagree with anything in the below quote of mine? If so, what exactly?

So there are four different possibilities for how a man and woman can be related:
1) Neither ownership nor one flesh. The relationship between you and most women in the world.
2) Possess a woman but have not made her one flesh. E.g. betrothal - you have agreed that she is your woman, paid a bride price for her if the father demanded it, but haven't slept together. Slavery is another scriptural example - this is the status of Bilhah and Zilpah before Jacob slept with them.
3) One flesh but don't possess the woman. Obvious example being that you slept with your neighbour's wife - you are now one flesh but she most certainly is not yours. But I would also apply this to sleeping with a prostitute, and a man sleeping with a virgin without first gaining her father's consent.
4) Both possess a woman and become one flesh with her. A healthy "marriage", to slip into using that term again as it gives the right mental picture.

 

[FollowingHim]

For my part, I agree entirely with this:

He defined the Adam and Eve’s relationship as one flesh and He described the state that was dissolved by divorce as one flesh. Of course He defined one flesh.

 

[The Revolting Man]

For my part, I agree entirely with this:

Then you are right that we generally agree. The sex equals marriage side has doubled in number. We’re fastest growing contingent in the forum. We’re glad to have you.

 

[FollowingHim]

Zec, you are creating confusion here by deliberately misinterpreting people's statements to be either black-and-white in support or opposition to you. This is not helpful.

Please say whether you disagree with anything in my above quote, and if so what.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec, you are creating confusion here by deliberately misinterpreting people's statements to be either black-and-white in support or opposition to you. This is not helpful.

Please say whether you disagree with anything in my above quote, and if so what.

One of us isn’t having the same conversation as the other one.

You said you agreed with me. I’m agreeing with you on that point. Are you disagreeing with me?

 

[FollowingHim]

I'm trying to have this conversation:

Do you disagree with anything in this quote?

So there are four different possibilities for how a man and woman can be related:
1) Neither ownership nor one flesh. The relationship between you and most women in the world.
2) Possess a woman but have not made her one flesh. E.g. betrothal - you have agreed that she is your woman, paid a bride price for her if the father demanded it, but haven't slept together. Slavery is another scriptural example - this is the status of Bilhah and Zilpah before Jacob slept with them.
3) One flesh but don't possess the woman. Obvious example being that you slept with your neighbour's wife - you are now one flesh but she most certainly is not yours. But I would also apply this to sleeping with a prostitute, and a man sleeping with a virgin without first gaining her father's consent.
4) Both possess a woman and become one flesh with her. A healthy "marriage", to slip into using that term again as it gives the right mental picture.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm trying to have this conversation:

Do you disagree with anything in this quote?

I disagree with “ownership”. Men don’t own their women. We can’t transfer title or dispose of the property. We hold our women in trust, they’re a fiduciary responsibility.

If you want to minimize it then you could describe it as a lease. We have to return them to their true owner and we’re liable for the damage.

I actually disagree with most of it now that I read it closer. We’re nowhere near to being on the same page. You’re still claiming that a father’s consent is required to form some next level relationship status you define as “marriage”. It doesn’t exist. You can’t show it to me in scripture. You’re making it up. Sex is the covenant/vow that binds a man and a woman together and violating the rules around sex is the sin adultery/fornication. Sex is that important. It can get you killed.

 

[MemeFan]

I disagree with “ownership”. Men don’t own their women. We can’t transfer title or dispose of the property. We hold our women in trust, they’re a fiduciary responsibility.

If you want to minimize it then you could describe it as a lease. We have to return them to their true owner and we’re liable for the damage.

His is right. Without possibility of title transfer, there exist no ownership.

Alone person has no need of ownership. He can just use everything around him. Need for ownership is needed is to solve conflict who can use what material objects. And conflict existence requires another people.

 

[FollowingHim]

I disagree with “ownership”. Men don’t own their women. We can’t transfer title or dispose of the property. We hold our women in trust, they’re a fiduciary responsibility.

If you want to minimize it then you could describe it as a lease. We have to return them to their true owner and we’re liable for the damage.

I actually disagree with most of it now that I read it closer. We’re nowhere near to being on the same page. You’re still claiming that a father’s consent is required to form some next level relationship status you define as “marriage”. It doesn’t exist. You can’t show it to me in scripture. You’re making it up. Sex is the covenant/vow that binds a man and a woman together and violating the rules around sex is the sin adultery/fornication. Sex is that important. It can get you killed.

If you replace the concept of "ownership" with "possession", are we more in agreement? I was using those two terms interchangeably anyway, so just consistently reading it as "possession" may actually better reflect my meaning.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If you replace the concept of "ownership" with "possession", are we more in agreement? I was using those two terms interchangeably anyway, so just consistently reading it as "possession" may actually better reflect my meaning.

We’re straying past the bounds of my claims, which are about the minimum standards that obligate a man and a woman to each other and God.

 

[FollowingHim]

It is beyond the bounds of your claims, as you usually just talk about the one flesh side of it, while I've further divided it by whether a man possesses the woman or not. But that is not the question. Is my broader claim right, or wrong? In that you can possess a woman without being one flesh, or be one flesh without possessing her, or be one flesh and possess her, and these are three separate practical realities.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It is beyond the bounds of your claims, as you usually just talk about the one flesh side of it, while I've further divided it by whether a man possesses the woman or not. But that is not the question. Is my broader claim right, or wrong? In that you can possess a woman without being one flesh, or be one flesh without possessing her, or be one flesh and possess her, and these are three separate practical realities.

I’ve never talked about this before because it gets weird fast and I don’t have it all worked out in my mind, but I think if you possess a woman who is not expressly forbidden to you then the one flesh is kind of assumed. I think David’s servant women who Absolom took probably fall into this category. I doubt they were one flesh with him but he never went them near again to avoid the appearance of evil.

I think we see something similar with the young woman brought in to keep him warm. There was no actual sex but there was an assumption of one fleshedness at some level I can’t explain.

It’s not that you can possess her without being one flesh with her, it’s that if you possess her what kind of raging homo would you have to be to not be one flesh. Like I said , gets weird fast and I haven’t dug into it.

 

[FollowingHim]

I’ve never talked about this before because it gets weird fast and I don’t have it all worked out in my mind

The borderline cases only grow weird because you are trying to make "possession" and "one flesh" be the exact same thing. You are doing this by sometimes saying marriage = one flesh, and other times saying marriage = possession (by assuming whenever someone says "my woman" this also means marriage). This works in normal / ideal situations when someone is one flesh with a woman they possess. But it breaks down and "gets weird" in every borderline situation, where only one of these is the case. The fact that it "gets weird" shows that it's flawed. A correct understanding will make sense in every situation.

As soon as you consider "possession" separately, everything just falls into place and all the weirdness vanishes.

You are correct to be so passionate about "one flesh". You just get tied into knots by trying to only look at that and never see anything else.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The borderline cases only grow weird because you are trying to make "possession" and "one flesh" be the exact same thing.

You’re going to have to show me possession in scripture. You are making a very big deal out of a concept that I’ve never seen articulated in the Bible. Please be conservative in how much of this argument you rest on Exodus 22:16.

marriage = possession

No. God is completely okay with the long distance thing as long as you both can handle it.

by assuming whenever someone says "my woman" this also means marriage).

Well, one flesh.

This works in normal / ideal situations when someone is one flesh with a woman they possess.

So it works when people follow scripture? It’s scriptural?

The fact that it "gets weird" shows that it's flawed

Does that apply to every spiritual concept? Weirdness equals falsehood?

A correct understanding will make sense in every situation

No, or there wouldn’t need to be multiple laws and teachings around any given topic.

As soon as you consider "possession" separately, everything just falls into place and all the weirdness vanishes.

Everything is already in place. There is nothing to be placed. One flesh is it. Finito. Finis. Kaput.

flesh". You just get tied into knots by trying to only look at that and never see anything else

I’m not in knots. There is nothing else to see. I’ve been begging for anyone to show me anything for years at this point. All I get is Exodus 22:16.

 

[FollowingHim]

I'm not going to debate this and try to change your mind @The Revolting Man, we've done that before and it's a waste of both of our time. If you genuinely want to work out those border cases that you currently "don't have worked out in your mind", I'd be glad to have a constructive discussion and help you nut them out. But I'm not going to debate it.

Possession is everywhere in scripture that you read the phrase "my woman" ("my wife" in most translations). If I say "my chainsaw", I am saying "I possess that chainsaw", I'm not saying "I have an intimate relationship with that chainsaw" . Same goes for women. My means my.

So it's everywhere - it's actually far more commonly mentioned than "one flesh". In the KJV, "One flesh" appears only 7 times, while "My wife" appears 15 times, and "His wife" appears 122 times.

Just read it in plain English rather than reinterpreting "his wife" to mean "one flesh".

 

[FollowingHim]

Here's a specific example for you to consider @The Revolting Man.

Genesis 29:21 "And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her."

Jacob said "Give me my woman". He called Rachel "my woman". However he most certainly had not yet had sex with her, that's what he was asking to do. So in what way was Rachel Jacob's woman?