What is fornication?

[The Revolting Man]

I don't think it's that sacred and holy. No. A lot of this teaching came from the Roman catholic church with their Greek philosophy of the church fathers and Greco-Roman ideology. Alot of christedom views on sex and marriage came from that. At one point they believe sex to be this evil act and made it only for marriage but called it a necessary evil. That lust as bad too. The early church fathers all of this came from them. Even after the reformation movement Christians still haven't been able to get over this that sex is this major major thing especially for a man.

As I said genesis 2:24 is merely a description of what happens when a couple comes together nothing more nothing less. They were made to come together and procreate that's it. The west in general tends to be pretty prude when it comes sex. I do think it affects the woman more than the man I do agree with that especially if she's a virgin. Personally I wouldn't sleep with a virgin unless I planned on keeping her but that's just my own personal conviction cause I know how it affects them.

You’re ignoring, or haven’t yet studied, about all the times that God describes Himself as a husband; all the times He talks about His bond with His people as being sexual. There is a whole book about it, Song of Solomon. Significant portions of Isaiah and Ezekiel and even most of the book of Hosea are dealing with the deep spiritual metaphors that exist around sex. It’s not just an act. It is a living testament to the proper relationship to our Creator. When we misuse sex we literally blaspheme with our bodies. Now admittedly, after all of my hand wringing about what the text actually says, I’m adding quite a bit of flesh to those bones. It might be a little bit of hyperbole but I don’t think so.

Adultery and idolatry are closely related words and almost identical concepts in Greek. Husbands are most often described as “baals”, semi-divine masters. We’re most familiar with Baal as a catch all title for all the various false Gods that got worshipped in the Old Testament.

You can’t downgrade sex to a merely or evenly largely physical act. Sex, again this is as much opinion as anything, is the place where we most fully see that what’s bound in earth is loosed in heaven and vice versa.

Just for the record let me state that I am not sympathetic to the Greco-Roman ethic. I am a Torah keeper. I’m fairly loose on the sexual “sins”. I don’t claim a blanket prohibition on pornography, masturbation has no moral implication at all, I don’t see lesbianism anywhere in scripture. I can’t forbid strip clubs and I don’t see any need for “modesty” in women eligible for one flesh.

But I can’t read scripture and come to the conclusion that sex is an act without powerful spiritual ramifications.

 

[Deesee25]

You’re ignoring, or haven’t yet studied, about all the times that God describes Himself as a husband; all the times He talks about His bond with His people as being sexual. There is a whole book about it, Song of Solomon. Significant portions of Isaiah and Ezekiel and even most of the book of Hosea are dealing with the deep spiritual metaphors that exist around sex. It’s not just an act. It is a living testament to the proper relationship to our Creator. When we misuse sex we literally blaspheme with our bodies. Now admittedly, after all of my hand wringing about what the text actually says, I’m adding quite a bit of flesh to those bones. It might be a little bit of hyperbole but I don’t think so.

That's because He owns her and her sexual exclusivity belongs to Him. Once that ownership and/or that agreement is made. The main thing we disagree on is where does a marriage actually begin at sex or at a claim or agreement to ownership. Which probably why were having this conversation to begin with.

When it comes to sex it's a bigger deal for a female than it is for a male. We know it's more likely for her to be emotionally attached and fall in love but for men for the most part it's not that big of a deal men can usually keep the emotions out of it though some can fall in love afterward but not as much as women. But women tend to be the main ones who end relationships 80% of divorces are initiated by them. So it's questionable as to how strong that bond actually is for them.

Just for the record let me state that I am not sympathetic to the Greco-Roman ethic. I am a Torah keeper. I’m fairly loose on the sexual “sins”. I don’t claim a blanket prohibition on pornography, masturbation has no moral implication at all, I don’t see lesbianism anywhere in scripture. I can’t forbid strip clubs and I don’t see any need for “modesty” in women eligible for one flesh.

Well I look at leviticus mainly for what sexual sins actually are and go by that. As long as I don't past those guidelines everything else would seem permissible. Though I look at history and nature and biblical female promiscuity in general has always been looked down upon and shameful. Same thing with female singleness. But for a man generally it's not frown upon. We are different we see a beautiful woman and immediately want to bang her but females it takes a lot more.

This generally why guys tend to have more sexual partners than females do. So on some level I do agree with you but I think the standards and views on sex are different for both genders.

While I don't think a "single" woman sleeping around is sinful I do think it's unwise and unhealthy for her and will affect her negatively. Let's just say I had a daughter I would encourage her to find one man (or I find her man) and stick with him. Vs my son if he wants to do the same thing that's fine but he should go and get some dating experience and life experience. Experienced men is an asset experienced women tend to be a liability. And just by attraction. Men are attracted to inexperienced women women are attracted to experienced men.

 

[Mark C]

No. We make too much of this verse. I’ve see men try to claim scripture that doesn’t get repeated twice hasn’t been established by two or three witnesses. The verses are about trials. That’s what they apply to. Trials need to have more than one witness.

That was in part my point. BUT - He does give us two witnesses ("Heaven and Earth" - in many places...)

 

[OttoM]

One thing I have said for years, that fits regardless, is that we now have an entire generation (ok, several...) of 15 year-olds, with and without remaining genitalia at this point, who are so 'mis-taught' that they don't have a CLUE how many "wives" or "husbands" they do or do not have. Or even why it matters.

If those boys were righteous - they would have several wives under their covering. But they have been lied to. The women as well. What has been the result? The land has been turned to wickedness - exactly what the Creator warned would happen:

Leviticus 19:29 KJV
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness

Men don’t know their responsibilities. Schooling, media, and the churches have all failed them.

 

[OttoM]

Issue is there's nothing in scripture saying there has to be witnesses either. Marriages throughout time have changed and varied. Some had witnesses, some just moved in together and were considered married, then some just paid the father and took her.

It's very easy to have at least 2 witnesses. People in the man's household are witnesses. Neighbors. Family from the bride's side. You would want witnesses as well, and it makes perfect sense why this is written in the Word. Why? So your community knows this woman has been taken, and belongs to you. Therefore, no other man would try to obtain her for himself, and commit adultery.

The reason he had to marry her didn't really have to do with righteous reasons it was more economic reasons.

Scripture warns that whoredom in the land causes it to become wicked. So there's a righteous reason. And I don't think a woman becomes 'worthless' if her virginity has been taken, but no marriage was done. There is nothing in the Torah that forbids her from finding a husband - just like a woman that was properly divorced can find a husband (she also no longer has her virginity).

Since we don't have that nowadays and women are basically equal to men then this doesn't apply anymore

Babylon also says that male is female. And female is male. But that doesn't change the Creator's Laws, right? Same with equality. You can't use this logic to overturn the Laws of the Creator, and say it's no longer valid. Of course it still applies today. "Come out of her my people." You don't need to get married in the system of Babylon.

 

[OttoM]

No. We make too much of this verse. I’ve see men try to claim scripture that doesn’t get repeated twice hasn’t been established by two or three witnesses. The verses are about trials. That’s what they apply to. Trials need to have more than one witness.

2 Corinthians 13:1
“The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”

Deut. 19:15
A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

 

[MemeFan]

It's very easy to have at least 2 witnesses. People in the man's household are witnesses. Neighbors. Family from the bride's side. You would want witnesses as well, and it makes perfect sense why this is written in the Word. Why? So your community knows this woman has been taken, and belongs to you. Therefore, no other man would try to obtain her for himself, and commit adultery.

Why would man need to have witnesses?

His claim, especially if supported by her is enough.

And what if she gets pregnant? Then it's obvious she is taken. Nooo, without witnesses we can't confirm pregnant women is married with man whom both claim is father of child.

 

[OttoM]

Why would man need to have witnesses?

His claim, especially if supported by her is enough.

And what if she gets pregnant? Then it's obvious she is taken. Nooo, without witnesses we can't confirm pregnant women is married with man whom both claim is father of child.

Because that’s what the Word says:

Deut. 19:15
A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

And if her covering (father) denies the marriage from taking place - then there is no marriage. Just like when the patriarch Jacob was pulling the breaks on the marriage of his daughter to her rapist. Was the man that the Most High said he loves - Jacob - in sin and rebellion for doing this? What does the Word say?

Exodus 22:16-17 NLT
6 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to anyone and has sex with her, he must pay the customary bride price and marry her. 17 But if her father refuses to let him marry her, the man must still pay him an amount equal to the bride price of a virgin.

Exodus 22:16-17 Brenton's Septuagint Translation
16 And if any one deceive a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her for a wife to himself. 17 And if her father positively refuse, and will not consent to give her to him for a wife, he shall pay compensation to her father according to the amount of the dowry of virgins.

 

[MemeFan]

Because that’s what the Word says:

Deut. 19:15
A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

And if her covering (father) denies the marriage from taking place - then there is no marriage. Just like when the Patriarch Jacob was pulling the breaks on marriage to his daughter’s rapist. Was the man that the Most High said he loves - Jacob - in sin and rebellion for doing this?

They are witnesses between themselves.

Catholic Church is allowing couple to be witness for each other.

And those witness rules applies to court activities. There is no court without active conflict.

Starting marriage per se isn't conflict generating.

EDIT: If this verse would be followed till end, we would finish in absurd situation. Math proof done by mathematician isn't established matter because nobody else is witnese. This is wrong. Mathematical proof is by itself proving of truth and finding truth, there is no need for "extra help".

 

[MemeFan]

Deut. 19:15
A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

In this worst case your epistemology is totally wrong. Epistemology deals with how me know something is true.

For example, you dream something. Can you say what was your dream althought nobody except you saw dream.

You find dead body of man filled with bullets. Well, there are no witnesses therefore I can't conclude he was shot.

Or we have case of murder with one witness and body filled with bullet which autopsy has comfirned cmust came from suspect gun. And suspect was widely known to hate dead person. Nope, suspect must be free because we have only one witness.

 

[FollowingHim]

While I don't think a "single" woman sleeping around is sinful I do think it's unwise and unhealthy for her and will affect her negatively. Let's just say I had a daughter I would encourage her to find one man (or I find her man) and stick with him. Vs my son if he wants to do the same thing that's fine but he should go and get some dating experience and life experience. Experienced men is an asset experienced women tend to be a liability. And just by attraction. Men are attracted to inexperienced women women are attracted to experienced men.

For a man to sleep around, he has to have women to sleep with. So this implies women must sleep around also.

The part of your argument that I honestly find disgraceful is that you are devaluing the women that your hypothetical son might sleep with. You value your daughter enough to tell her not to do this, but don't care how many other men's daughters your son caused to sleep around. They are just faceless bodies, not people, and can be ignored.

This is a fundamental evil in the Greeco/Roman cultural view. Women are devalued and kicked to the curb when they no longer give a man pleasure, and he can just move on to another, leaving a trail of broken women in his wake.

It's also a major evil of the "MGTOW" movement etc - you end up with "alpha" males who get the girls and sleep around, and "beta" males who the alphas despise but actually end up marrying those broken women and helping them heal and become the mothers they were destined to be.

Women are far more valuable than this.

 

[FollowingHim]

It's very easy to have at least 2 witnesses.

I agree it's very easy. I also agree that you should do this - because basically any formality that you can add around marriage is a good thing, since it increases the seriousness with which the marriage is viewed and increases the positive peer pressure to keep going through the hard times.

But @The Revolting Man is correct that it is not mandatory, because that verse is not about marriage. It's just a good idea.

This is the religious spirit - taking things that are fundamentally "good advice" and making them law. The Pharisees did it, the Catholics did it, the Protestants did it, and it's very easy to do it ourselves also. Don't. Keep recommending it as good advice, but don't suggest it is necessary.

 

[OttoM]

I agree it's very easy. I also agree that you should do this - because basically any formality that you can add around marriage is a good thing, since it increases the seriousness with which the marriage is viewed and increases the positive peer pressure to keep going through the hard times.

But @The Revolting Man is correct that it is not mandatory, because that verse is not about marriage. It's just a good idea.

This is the religious spirit - taking things that are fundamentally "good advice" and making them law. The Pharisees did it, the Catholics did it, the Protestants did it, and it's very easy to do it ourselves also. Don't. Keep recommending it as good advice, but don't suggest it is necessary.

It’s extremely easy to have two witnesses. I would reckon almost all modern marriages have at least two witnesses.

The only men I reckon that would have trouble with fulfilling this are those that are kidnapping girls, and raping them. Perhaps forcing them into marriage without her father’s involvement - so going behind her own covering.

John 10:1
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

But I do agree it’s not mandatory. Just good guidance.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Well I look at leviticus mainly for what sexual sins actually are and go by that. As long as I don't past those

This part I agree with.

 

[The Revolting Man]

2 Corinthians 13:1
“The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”

Deut. 19:15
A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

You didn’t read either those passages or what I wrote about those passages.

 

[OttoM]

You didn’t read either those passages or what I wrote about those passages.

I agree with FollowingHim. It's good guidance, but not mandatory.

 

[Deesee25]

Babylon also says that male is female. And female is male. But that doesn't change the Creator's Laws, right? Same with equality. You can't use this logic to overturn the Laws of the Creator, and say it's no longer valid. Of course it still applies today. "Come out of her my people." You don't need to get married in the system of Babylon.

Well I'm telling you what the reason for it actually was. It has nothing to do with to really do what your talking about. It was more about taking something from the store that was up for sale then putting it back without purchasing it. This why the father could refuse because he was basically the owner of that property but would still be reimbursed for the damages to his goods. That's what that was mainly about it it doesn't apply today. Back then women were basically like property unlike today. Its a different world.

 

[Deesee25]

Scripture warns that whoredom in the land causes it to become wicked. So there's a righteous reason. And I don't think a woman becomes 'worthless' if her virginity has been taken, but no marriage was done. There is nothing in the Torah that forbids her from finding a husband - just like a woman that was properly divorced can find a husband (she also no longer has her virginity).

That was more about her becoming a prostitute in Israel in her father's house totally different subject. Prostitution was ok if she was independent from her father as scripture never Bans Prostitution outside of those guidelines. I have read that was more about becoming a temple prostitute not just a normal commercial one but I'm not 100% sure on that either. Still that's a completely different senerio.

1. Well one it's not about what you think as it is about what it is. Virgins were fetched for a much higher prices than non-virgins. That's still true today most men would rather marry a virgin than a non virgin.

2. I never said she was worthless but she would be less desirable vs a virgin therefore it would make it more difficult for her father to find her a suitable husband. There is a SMV=sexual market value that's exist since the beginning of time. It has nothing to do with your worth as a person it has to do with her being to attract the highest value guy she can get. A woman who is a young beautiful virgin is more desirable than one who's older and has slept around more. That's just how the game works.

 

[Deesee25]

For a man to sleep around, he has to have women to sleep with. So this implies women must sleep around also.

Not necessarily as women can share the
Same guy (they often do and dont even realize it sometines). It's not even one to one cause there are more single men virgin men especially younger than there are women. Women for the most part will share the same guy. I had a buddy tell me about how all the woman in her little youth circle all slept with the same two guys. Most women are not attracted to most guys anyways. We think it's 1 to 1 when it's not. Most guys are not sleeping with anyone in today's world anyways. Which makes sense if most guys are attractive to most girls anyways.

 

[Deesee25]

The part of your argument that I honestly find disgraceful is that you are devaluing the women that your hypothetical son might sleep with. You value your daughter enough to tell her not to do this, but don't care how many other men's daughters your son caused to sleep around. They are just faceless bodies, not people, and can be ignored.

Yes because men and women are different. For a man to be attractive to a female he has to have experience while the exact opposite is true for the female. It's two different strategies cause it's two different people. We think whats good for the goose is good for the gander but it's not. Sure if we lived in a world we're most women were virgins again then it would a different story but we don't.

Since women tend to have more than one partner she's going to be comparing you to her previous ones I've seen this happen quite a bit. So it is better for him to have some experience at least more than her or else he's gonna be at a servere disadvantage. I don't make the rules man I just gotta follow them lol. We tend to want to look at the world for what it should be rather than what it is.