Sex vs Sex Acts

[BiblicalLiteralist]

No. Never had sex, still a virgin. Of course, not necessarily the sort of virgin that would actually make a good wife unless she's completely changed her mindset. But still a virgin.

Yet at the same time - don't do any of that.

Could have a long discussion on that one as arguments can be made both ways. So the short answer is that it is down to her husband to prayerfully determine what is the right approach in that situation, taking into account love and forgiveness. He might have such a long complex discussion in the process of determining his answer, but I don't think we need to have it over a hypothetical. The hypothetical will be far less informative than the real.

If you have a real situation in mind that you need an actual answer on, we'll quickly find a lot more clarity. If you don't have a real situation in mind, this discussion will go round and round for 100 pages and nobody will be the wiser at the end. It's just how these things go.

What I am looking for is scriptural references that can be applied to the situations to justify the reasoning for one way or another, however in order to properly have a discussion about this, the terms need to be defined. I have come to mostly the same conclusions you have, what I am struggling with is how do you hold accountable them who have committed no sins? I am not interested in what is wise or unwise, I want to know what is permissible and impermissible. Why the need for specifics, if they are to applied as a catch all.

 

[FollowingHim]

I am not interested in what is wise or unwise, I want to know what is permissible and impermissible.

But things are not divided just into "permissible" and "impermissible". In reality, there are more categories than that. If you oversimplify you will get an artificial and misleading answer.

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

But things are not divided just into "permissible" and "impermissible". In reality, there are more categories than that. If you oversimplify you will get an artificial and misleading answer.

If this is true, then it should be backed up by scripture. Things are either sinful or they aren't.

 

[NBTX11]

The things that are impermissible are clearly listed in God's word. See Lev. 18, for example. Use your best judgement on things not listed. They may not be sin, but may be terrible to do. As far as "to take" a woman, that doesn't always mean by force. I took my women and they became mine. No force was involved in any way. It was consensual.

 

[Maddog]

Mary was betrothed to Joseph and had not become one-flesh until after Jesus was born. He had the right to change her status as his wife- put her away (quietly) but God said "Not so fast!"

 

[MemeFan]

I have come to mostly the same conclusions you have, what I am struggling with is how do you hold accountable them who have committed no sins?

Why you want to hold accountable for someone who hasn't commited any sin?

I get if you get unfulfilled promise, but that's not the topic here.

 

[FollowingHim]

If this is true, then it should be backed up by scripture. Things are either sinful or they aren't.

I'm not disagreeing that things are either sinful or not. Sin is a very small category, clearly defined in scripture, and the vast majority of things are not sinful. However, a large portion of those things are still wrong, or at least extremely unwise. To focus on only "sin" vs "not-sin" can be a dangerous error, as it can give the highly misleading impression that something is acceptable to do just because the Bible does not specifically prohibit it. In order to fully understand what God is teaching us through scripture, we have to also take into account that not all things are profitable, and at minimum add the category of "not-sin-but-don't-do-it" to our understanding. Otherwise we will fall into error.

 

[Maddog]

Well, there's SIN and NOT A GOOD IDEA and THAT'S A DUMB IDEA and HE IS A FOOL!