• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

What is fornication?

All this talk and back and forth, yet no one is asking the important question....

Can chicks make out? :cool:

Lol seriously though ...

I see it was lightly mentioned earlier in this thread...
The wife and I very recently had strong debate over the topic of female to female physical intimacy/ sexual interaction. I get her a bit fired up if I point out that the Biblie is basically silent on the issue. In fact, the one passage from Romans chapter 1 that is so commonly used to preach against such behavior actually seems to be discouraging anal sex rather.

Be brave men... Am I way off?
Cuz to me it seems like it was important to the Lord for Him to list all restricted forms of sexual interactions... yet this one is left out?
 
rustywest4 said:
All this talk and back and forth, yet no one is asking the important question....

Can chicks make out? :cool:

Lol seriously though ...

I see it was lightly mentioned earlier in this thread...
The wife and I very recently had strong debate over the topic of female to female physical intimacy/ sexual interaction. I get her a bit fired up if I point out that the Biblie is basically silent on the issue. In fact, the one passage from Romans chapter 1 that is so commonly used to preach against such behavior actually seems to be discouraging anal sex rather.

Be brave men... Am I way off?
Cuz to me it seems like it was important to the Lord for Him to list all restricted forms of sexual interactions... yet this one is left out?
Click to expand...
Actually the wife and I have discussed this exact issue and come to the conclusion that it is basically ok, in the context of plural marriage.
Why? Because a man can have sex with more than one wife at a time and it seems natural that they could pleasure each other in that context.

I dont think, though, that you could therefore say that it is ok for fenale-female relations to replace male-female ones, for all the relational issues otherwise mentioned. Men are made to satisfy women sexually and otherwise and are needed for that, and vice versa. But in the context of that being met as the real relationship in a poly marriage? Sure, if my wives want to make out, I see no issue with that. The issue comes when that is their primary or only desire (or, in other words, it begins to usurp the natural order of things).
 
@rustywest4
That topic comes up from time to time, the general conclusion is usually that the Bible doesn't condemn it so it can't be pronounced sinful at least within the context of marriage, but that doesn't mean it's something being promoted either. Just an issue that is so unimportant to God that He didn't even bother to clarify it in scripture, so something for each man to decide what will or will not occur under his roof.
 
rustywest4 said:
All this talk and back and forth, yet no one is asking the important question....

Can chicks make out? :cool:

Lol seriously though ...

I see it was lightly mentioned earlier in this thread...
The wife and I very recently had strong debate over the topic of female to female physical intimacy/ sexual interaction. I get her a bit fired up if I point out that the Biblie is basically silent on the issue. In fact, the one passage from Romans chapter 1 that is so commonly used to preach against such behavior actually seems to be discouraging anal sex rather.

Be brave men... Am I way off?
Cuz to me it seems like it was important to the Lord for Him to list all restricted forms of sexual interactions... yet this one is left out?
Click to expand...
I agree with you. But it’s probably not best to talk too much about it publicly...
 
I’d like to thank the brave men who responded lol
@EternalDreamer i agree with you and @FollowingHim plenty!

God doesn’t address the dynamic so each man is boss of his house.
Full lesbianism rejects God’s designed for the women... which is the man! :cool:
In a poly setting... two wives making out would be way freaking hot, and although few of us will say it out loud (especially in the presence of our wives) we are all thinking it... often! Lol jk :rolleyes:
 
Pacman said:
It’s also worth pointing out that a husband can be guilty of defrauding as well... and would also be covenant breaking.
Click to expand...
He can be guilty of defrauding, although I don't like the term but that wouldn't be covenant breaking for several reasons, the biggest being that there is no covenant connected a husband and a wife anywhere in the book and another being that the whole reducing her portion thing only applies to a very limited number of women, none of which exist in the West.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I’m not sure what a MOP is. Monogamy Only Person?

I’d agree with most of your post, however, I’ve found that Biblical adultery has broader coverage than just stealing another mans wife.

In its simplest form, adultery is anything that breaks a covenant. This may include sex with another mans wife but icould also also serving another god or not fulfilling the laws basic requirements as a husband or wife which includes marital duties.
Click to expand...
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where is this covenant you're using to rewrite scripture? You're literally expanding the definition of a sin to fit an idea you can't even show us in scripture! I can't believe where you let this craziness take you! You are promoting falsehoods that could give marginal Believers the idea that they are free to "remarry" when they're actually committing adultery. Do you really want to have to answer for that when you stand before God? He defined adultery as a man having sex with another man's wife. You've taken a highly questionable teaching and used it to expand that definition out considerably. Almost anything could qualify as adultery under your definition.

I'm sorry. This is just falsehood. God defines sin. You are adding to the Word and dangerously so.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
IMO she is the covenant breaker even if she never has relations with anyone else ever again. She is an adulteress without having sex outside of marriage (that I know of) and the Judge will hold her accountable for this.
Click to expand...

This is in direct opposition to the Word of God. 1 Corinthians 7:11 says that a woman who leaves her husband must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. Clearly the man is still her husband even though she separated herself from him. I hope you will see how far off base you are and how much you risk leading others astray. Here is the link to the verse if you want to wrestle with it but there is not much wiggle room if you're being honest.

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-11.htm
 
rustywest4 said:
I’d like to thank the brave men who responded lol
@EternalDreamer i agree with you and @FollowingHim plenty!

God doesn’t address the dynamic so each man is boss of his house.
Full lesbianism rejects God’s designed for the women... which is the man! :cool:
In a poly setting... two wives making out would be way freaking hot, and although few of us will say it out loud (especially in the presence of our wives) we are all thinking it... often! Lol jk :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I would go farther and say that full lesbianism isn't addressed in scripture but rebellion is. There are a lot of prim and proper church ladies sitting in pews all over who are going to find out that God despises them and isn't really all that concerned about the "lesbians" who really just decided to not get married. And you're completely right about Romans 1:25.
 
rustywest4 said:
All this talk and back and forth, yet no one is asking the important question....

Can chicks make out? :cool:

Lol seriously though ...

I see it was lightly mentioned earlier in this thread...
The wife and I very recently had strong debate over the topic of female to female physical intimacy/ sexual interaction. I get her a bit fired up if I point out that the Biblie is basically silent on the issue. In fact, the one passage from Romans chapter 1 that is so commonly used to preach against such behavior actually seems to be discouraging anal sex rather.

Be brave men... Am I way off?
Cuz to me it seems like it was important to the Lord for Him to list all restricted forms of sexual interactions... yet this one is left out?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of milk drinkers who come through here though and some of these conversations need to be between men who eat meat.
 
Pacman said:
3. Man having sex with a hooker. Yes this is the sin of fornication it’s almost the most clearly defined form of fornication in all of scripture...
1 Corinthians 6:15-20
Click to expand...

I wouldn't base that on 1 Cor 6. Last time I researched this subject I found that porneia originally referred to temple prostitution. With time it came to be used to generally refer to any immoral sex but could still be used to refer to temple prostitution; which if that were what was in mind in 1 Cor 6, would explain Paul's reasoning better.

Especially since I'm not aware of an OT condemnation of sex with a hooker (sex for pay, not as a form of worship). I might be wrong, given the opaque way harlot is used in the OT; if so please do share.

Though I'm more interested if anyone can tell me which scripture prohibits #2 (Sex between man and promiscuous (or non-virgin) never married woman.)

Verifyveritas76 said:
Deuteronomy 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to fornicate in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with that shoe horn. First because it is a leap to far and second because I don't think anyone seriously believes it. If true, it would immediately render 90% or more of single never married women ineligible for marriage; even Christian ones.
 
rockfox said:
Especially since I'm not aware of an OT condemnation of sex with a hooker (sex for pay, not as a form of worship). I might be wrong, given the opaque way harlot is used in the OT; if so please do share.
Click to expand...

I also don't know of any specific condemnation of it in the law but this makes me think it's a bad idea to do it...
 
Pacman said:
I also don't know of any specific condemnation of it in the law but this makes me think it's a bad idea to do it...
Click to expand...
Not to play devil's advocate, since I think I agree, but I've always read that verse as relating to witness/outreach, not actual actions (that is, why would a woman be a hooker? Because she was sold off or indentured or abandoned or what have you. The children of Israel were not supposed to do those things, soooo...don't make your daughters hookers is the end way of saying 'don't abandon, disown, sell, etc... your daughters'.)
 
ZecAustin said:
There are a lot of milk drinkers who come through here though and some of these conversations need to be between men who eat meat.
Click to expand...
Except you can't filter for 'milk drinkers', and I think you would strongly agree that we are not some 'tyranny of the weaker brother' here by any stretch of the term. Seems to me we are all reasonable, intelligent and God-studied folks in this discussion, so I'm not sure who you're dismissing (if you are?)
 
rockfox said:
I have a problem with that shoe horn. First because it is a leap to far and second because I don't think anyone seriously believes it. If true, it would immediately render 90% or more of single never married women ineligible for marriage; even Christian ones.
Click to expand...

Can you explain further? The shoe horn is that she committed fornication in her fathers house or ? I realize sometimes I’m slow to get things and apparently prone to misunderstanding, but I’m really not sure what you’re saying exactly.

Also what don’t you think anyone seriously believes?

Truly curious and trying to understand your comment.
 
ZecAustin said:
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where is this covenant you're using to rewrite scripture? You're literally expanding the definition of a sin to fit an idea you can't even show us in scripture! I can't believe where you let this craziness take you! You are promoting falsehoods that could give marginal Believers the idea that they are free to "remarry" when they're actually committing adultery. Do you really want to have to answer for that when you stand before God? He defined adultery as a man having sex with another man's wife. You've taken a highly questionable teaching and used it to expand that definition out considerably. Almost anything could qualify as adultery under your definition.

I'm sorry. This is just falsehood. God defines sin. You are adding to the Word and dangerously so.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not sure about all of that, but as has been mentioned several times, by multiple people, the sin of worshipping false Gods as well as not obeying the commands are referenced Biblically as adultery where there is no sexual connotation at all. Sexual adultery in any form involves covenant breaking.

You are correct that adultery includes a man sleeping with another mans wife. But that is by no means the full scope and breadth of Biblical adultery.

You are incorrect that almost anything can qualify as adultery under this definition. Granted, it is more than just sexual defilement, but far short of almost anything.

And yes, I do understand that I will give account of my beliefs.
 
ZecAustin said:
This is in direct opposition to the Word of God. 1 Corinthians 7:11 says that a woman who leaves her husband must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. Clearly the man is still her husband even though she separated herself from him. I hope you will see how far off base you are and how much you risk leading others astray. Here is the link to the verse if you want to wrestle with it but there is not much wiggle room if you're being honest.

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-11.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I am familiar with the verse. I also understand that covenant breaking without cause is adultery on the part of the one breaking it, thus my comment on her as an adulteress. There is much that I didnt say in the post earlier, and there is a next to never chance that they will reconcile, but IMO there was absolutely no justification for her to break covenant.

This is kinda funny Zec. Usually youre the one saying that she cant initiate divorce.
 
ZecAustin said:
there is no covenant connected a husband and a wife anywhere in the book
Click to expand...

That’s kind of interesting. God calls himself a husband and Israel and Judah wives, and details the process including a detailed description of how he married them and includes a covenant.

Are you saying that God is not a husband? Or Israel and Judah weren’t his wives? I’m confused
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
That’s kind of interesting. God calls himself a husband and Israel and Judah wives, and details the process including a detailed description of how he married them and includes a covenant.

Are you saying that God is not a husband? Or Israel and Judah weren’t his wives? I’m confused
Click to expand...

It's possible that you're extending the metaphor of husband and wife too far. God is condescending to explain what the relationship is like between Him and his covenant people. Without support, you seem to be using the metaphor to inform your understanding of the reality. That's simply backwards. Metaphors are specifically used to explain what is not understood by what is understood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top