Corinthians 6:9-10

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


Corinthians 6:18

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Thessalonians 4:3

For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fronication.

Hebrews 13:4

Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whore mongers and adulterers God will judge.

.
.
.

Your book clearly states that fornication is disallowed.
Here are questions for the fornictors of this forum:

Are you going against the will of God? Are you disobeying the Bible? Aren't you a Christian?

Yes I am a Christian.

It's just that I'm following the Bible in chronological order. I haven't gotten past "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28) yet.

Give me another few decades or so. I'll get to the parts you cited eventually.

I fully agree. Your point is valid, but it will be lost here, just wait until the village idiots come knocking with their torches and troll hunting gear. Do you agree? I agree!

I like "whore culture" better. It has more cachet. :p

It is not my place to judge the actions of others, only my own. I live in my own glass house, thank you, and for better or worse, we all do.

I agree! My house is made of glass and smells of rich mahogany!

Yessir, that's one bonehead name, but that ain't me no more. (apoligies to the brother's Coen).

I'm not Christian, but I couldn't help but glance through such a discussion started by Yhapbo. It's basically what I expected.

I'm not a big fan, personally, of fornication because of the implications of it all. If a baby is born, what do you do? If you're going to have sex with somebody, shouldn't it mean that you want a strong relationship with that person anyways? Of course, sex should be put off until at least the late teen years (when marriage is legal, anyhow).

But if a couple is engaged, and they are going to share a life together, then I don't really see a problem with it.

Now, as Jew I can say that there are a lot of things in the Jewish law that I don't follow. For example, I play piano on the Sabbath. It doesn't say specifically, "Though shalt not play Edvard Grieg's Piano Concerto on the Sabbath..." but it does say something to the affect of not working. Oh well. I eat only kosher foods in a kosher manner in my home, but I will eat a hamburger at a non-kosher restaurant. Oh well. I'm still Jewish, and a very good Jew at that.

Am I wrong, or is Christianity the same way? Can you choose to lead your life the way that you like, following many Christian tennets, not following others, and still be a good Christian? I think so, but let me know if I'm wrong about that!

This thread is aimed at fundamental biblicists, not at reasonable people such as yourself.

Actually a lot of us are guilty of the "Jesus is a reasonable guy...He thinks a lot like I do..."

Or "Jesus thinks a lot like my (minister, priest) thinks..."

I think Jesus challenges us... thoughts, spirit and deeds. Rationalization is Evil's greatest tool.

Easier to focus on the sins of others... Most of us are guilty of this at some time or another.

My first crises of faith came as a child. A young boy near my house suffered a severe brain injury. It changed what was once a peaceful and loving kid into a violent child. I wondered then how God could judge his behavior and mine in the same way. For this boy's behavior seemed not to be fully under his control...

It was then that I decided that I needed to worry more about my behavior - and let God do the judging of others for only He could know what hand they had been dealt.

K

somebody's going to pay for all the time I'm spending on PW today when I should be doing other things... and that someone will unfortunately be me by working longer tonite than planned.

But, pianojerome, I did want to take advantage of the opportunity provided by your question.

Please, please do not judge Christianity in general by many, probably most, of the posts on this forum. This is not meant to disparage the said posters but, surprisingly to me, they represent a relatively narrow range of Christianity as practiced in the world today.

In particular, Roman Catholicism is a highly adaptive religion and considerably more refined, sophisticated, modern and intellectual than many non-Christians might appreciate.

I can tell you that there are many Catholic priests (especially Jesuits) who have a severe problem with the present Pope (he is a stubborn reactionary) and yearn for the days of Pope John XXIII.

By the way, it is entirely valid for a Roman Catholic to critique the Pope. To claim otherwise would be an example of Manichaeism, a heresy from the early days of the Christian church.

That's a rather fragmented reply to your question. I could have simply answered "yes," but I just so enjoy hearing myself talk.

Say goodnight, MM.

Goodnight.

Well said MusicMagellan


I will comment on the original question as an Orthodox Christian.
There are some fundamental Theological differences between me and some others, making this thread not "aimed" at me (interesting choice of words yhabpo).

The Bible is very clear that fornication is a sin.

So what?

I mean, what are you getting at?

If you're trying to draw a logical conclusion that a fornicator can't be a Christian because fornication is sin, then you don't have a very firm understanding of what "sin" is, and of what "Christianity" is.
First let's tackle Christianity because it is necessary to understand the terms of the religion before delving into concepts such as "sin".

Christianity, at least in the Orthodox world follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. It doesn't stop there though.
There are a few beliefs that make Christians Christians, beyond their appreciation of Christ's teachings.
Christ was fully God, and fully man.
Man is sinful, but doesn't have to be (Many Protestants would disagree with this saying that Man has inherited sin).
God is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful.
God loves all[/b] of his creation

Of course there are more things to list here, but I don't have time to write a thesis here.
So, Christians are these people who believe in Jesus' teachings right?
Well... kind of, but there's a lot more to it.

One of the fundamental ideas in Christianity is one of repentance. The idea isn't that Christians don't sin, and everyone else does. The idea is that everyone sins. A Christian though is (or should be) repentant.

As a Christian you may be sinful in a number of ways even in a single minute! This doesn't make you any less of a Christian. It is the repentance that is important.
Again, I'm glazing over things here with broad[/b] generalities. But I want to lay a foundation so that there is context.
Fornication is[/b] a sin. But being a Christian isn't contingent on not sinning (Thank God).
God's Grace, and Love, and forgiveness allow even "fornicators" to be Christians. But more importantly, God loves all of his Children equally[/b], Christian and non-Christian.

Again I ask, to what end is your question? Because if the supposition is that a person who goes against the Bible can't be a Christian, then there was only one Christian ever.
He did not fornicate, he did not lie, he did not hate, he did not lust. He did not covet, he did not steal, he had no greed, and did not cheat.

KB,

I think the one thing that may be getting glossed is is whether a sinner can feel off the hook in sinning - knowing that he/she'll always be forgiven? Thus, do I have an unlimited sin account?

Can repentenance truly be sincere without an attempt to try and "sin no more?"

Ken

Ken,
I believe that part of being a Christian is exactly that... trying.
We all fall short, but we try.

No, a sinner can not have an unlimited sin account, because I don't think you can truly be sorry for their sin if they see nothing wrong with it in the first place.

It's not the act of asking for forgiveness that clears your sin account... it's not an act at all, but the recognition that what you did was wrong, and being sincerely sorry for it.
If those two things are sincere, then I would think you can't feel "off the hook".
These ideas are mutually exclusive (Christianity, and feeling "off the hook")

KB,

I think we're on the same page...

Still, I'm nervous about thinking "well as long as I'm baptized and as long as I ask for repentance 2 seconds before I pass away, I'll be saved."

Ken

Suppose a Christian sins, and feels really bad about it. So he repents, and cries out his full sorrow. But then he doesn't think twice about doing it again, and repents again very emotionally. Is this really enough?

In my mind there should be a real attempt to not commit the same sin again... I know we all sin, and we all will continue to sin. But is just being truly sorry enough? Or does one also have to make a conscious effort not to repeat the sin?

To answer the initial question(s):

When I was younger, I engaged in premarital sex; i.e., fornication - not a lot, and at an age a lot more advanced than many if not most, but it still met the biblical definition.

It was wrong, and I knew it. I turned away from it and asked for forgiveness for it.

It's important to note that I didn't try to delude myself that premarital sex was okay, or that the biblical position was outdated and not relevant to modern times and sensibilities. When I did it, I knew it was wrong. And when I tried to avoid it and failed, the feelings of guilt set in less than a minute afterward - Paul referred to same internal battle when he wrote a particularly moving passage most known for his comment "that which I would do, I do not, and that which I would not do, that I do."

Now that I'm a married man, fornication isn't, by definition, an issue. But there are countless other sins (or failings, if that word rubs you the wrong way), I still have to deal with, and struggle with, and turn away from, and succeed, and sometimes fail, and ask for forgiveness...and the cycle begins anew. But I do not think that the answer is to merely change the definitions of right and wrong to fit one's behavior.

So yes, there are lots of professing Christians who play fast and loose with the Christian position that sex outside the bounds of a male/female marriage is wrong and sinful. And they should be called on it every bit as much as anyone else who tries to redefine right and wrong based solely on their own situation.

I'm not sure that I meet the definition of "fundamental biblicist" that you say you're addressing, but the thread simply says "To Christians," and I think I qualify on that score. Or are you suggesting that all Christians who are serious about their faith are what you call "fundamental biblicists"(whatever that really means)?

This question is related to one that I was thinking about posting earlier today, and decided against. Maybe I'll post it anyway & see where it goes.

Dwain - How does this apply to homosexuality? Seems that all their sex must be fornication. And how can they ever sincerely repent, since "fornication" outside wedlock is the only sex they can ever have without denying this central part of themselves? Seems to be a problem for those who claim to separate hatred of the sin from hatred of the sinner.

It applies the exact same way that the Christian position applies to single heterosexuals. There is no distinction, or gradation of the sin, based on whether the sex is between members of the same or the opposite sex. The traditional Christian position doesn't discriminate against gays in this regard, it holds gays and straights to the exact same standard. So if a straight man who fails and fornicates is worthy of love and forgiveness, so equally is a gay man who fails and fornicates worthy of the same love and forgiveness. This is no problem or contradiction whatsoever with the concept of "hate the sin, love the sinner." As Christians, we are all called upon to deny things that would be equally considered to be "central parts of ourselves."

You all sure know how to hit a lure.

But isn't homosexuality considered sinful anyhow?

Merely having a homosexual "orientation" is not a sin; acting on the inclination is considered a sin in traditional Christian theology. Some, perhaps as Jeffrey, would say that this is splitting hairs and hypocritical. Others, like myself, would say that it's the same as any other type of sinful behavior - being human, we are inclined to all types of sin, any of which are as potentially "irresistable" as a sexual urge, but it is only sin when we act upon the inclination.

hook line and sinker JBryan! :rolleyes:

"Remember, though, "He who even looks at a women lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Emphasis mine)."

Correct NAK, because God is looking at the intent of the heart, and if you've taken the ogling to the point of lust, then you have acted on the urge. Merely admiring the beauty of a woman does not necessarily rise to the level of lust.

Sounds like a standard that's impossible for us to live up to, doesn't it? Well of course, it is. We can't measure up to a standard set that high, it's beyond our human capabilities, and even the thought of such a standard offends our modern sensibilities.


...or, as someone once said using somewhat more archaic language, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Means the same thing, eh?

JBryan, I know bait when I see it. But every once in a while I figure, if even one lurker gets any benefit from something that I write, it'll be worth it. Call it a "future occupation"-al hazard.

G'nite.

Dwain: "The traditional Christian position doesn't discriminate against gays in this regard, it holds gays and straights to the exact same standard."

False. Yes, I know it is the line. But it is still false. Gays are not, in principle, allowed to meet any moral standard. Your version of God feels like sadistically tormenting gays, you are welcome to it.

"Gays are not, in principle, allowed to meet any moral standard."

I don't know what this sentence means, Jeffrey. Gays are held to the same moral standard as straights who do not marry. And regarding all other moral issues that do not pertain to sex, the standard is, again, the exact same.

You and I will never agree on this issue because our definition of discrimination - or, in your opinion, "sadistically tormenting" gays - varies too much. I continue to stand up for tolerance and genuine love toward homosexuals, and fight against gay-bashing - particularly when done supposedly in the name of God. But there is a line that I draw, and I've defined it here: that in accordance with the traditional Christian position, that engaging in homosexual sex is viewed as a sin in the eyes of God - no more than my own particular sins, but no less so, either. To you, that's unacceptable. To me, it's applying the same standard to a gay man that is applied to me.

Dwain: Correction. My sentence should have said "Gays are not allowed to meet any moral standard, while remaining true to themselves as gay." I sort of assumed the second half of the sentence as understood. If you sin, you can repent, a gay person cannot (in this respect, and while respecting their own sexual orientation). This makes a mockery of the alleged distinction of hating the sin but not the sinner.

It doesn't, actually, because one could use your phrase of "respecting their own sexual orientation" in the same way regarding any other thing that the person was inclined to do, that God defines as contrary to his will. Self-centeredness is as equally a part of me as homosexual orientation is to someone else. In order to follow the Christian model, I am not allowed to "respect" this part of my existence; in fact, I am told I must "deny" it - i.e., turn away from it. Yet in the midst of this ongoing struggle, I am still worthy of the love of God and fellow humans. That isn't a mockery of hating the sin but not the sinner; it's the definition of it - unless one defines the term "loving the sinner" as simply agreeing that their sin is not sin.

I think that the Christian Church has done itself great harm in its often inconsistent and hypocritical stance toward homosexuals, particularly regarding the issue of the ordination of gays. This issue is one that has come up a lot in our particular denomination in recent years, and it's given me opportunity to think through my own personal theology of the issue in detail. Our church policy is that "unrepentant homosexuals" may not be ordained leaders of the church. I agree with this policy. I also agree that anyone else, who is living a life that includes unrepentant sin is not a partcularly good pastoral role model, and should not be an ordained minister. This does not necessarily mean that either of these people is not truly a Christian, or that they may not be a member of the congregation, or even a valued lay leader within the congregation. The fact that they have an unrepentant spirit toward some sinful aspect of their lives is only indicative that they are at a different point in their personal journey of faith to become more Christlike than someone else - and that that point is not an acceptable one from which to begin pursuing ordination. Becoming a Christian is not a one-time, lightning bolt experience (even those who begin their "faith journey" via a distinct "conversion experience" realize that it's only the beginning of a lifelong journey, not the end of the process).

But that phrase "unrepentant homosexuals" leads to another scenario. Another man is homosexual. He, too, is deeply serious about his Christian faith, and feels a call to the ordained ministry. He freely tells people about his sexual orientation, while telling them that he realizes that to act on his orientation would be wrong in the eyes of God. He confesses that he is in a lifelong struggle to turn away ("repent") from this aspect of his life, and acknowledges that he, just like any of his potential congregation, occasionally fails in his attempts to avoid sin. Would this man be eligible for ordained ministry?

I say yes. Even though I know he'll occasionally stumble, his heart has turned in the right direction. Just as I stumble in sin, so will he. In fact, I believe that this man could be an incredible asset to the church, offering a powerful message and setting an example of love, hope, and support to the many members of congregations around the world who fill the pews on any given Sunday, who face the same struggle.

But here, sadly, the church fails itself. Because of social and cultural prejudices also held by many of its members, and not effectively fought by the church itself, the church continues the incorrect double standard applied to gays and lesbians - that their sin is in some way worse than the more "socially acceptable" sins of other parishioners. This attitude is wrong, and it's led many to call out the Church as hypocritical in this regard - and in my opinion, those critics are exactly right.

But the church's often incorrect, hypocritical attitudes toward gays can't be corrected by swinging too far in the other direction - that God does not call homosexual acts wrong at all, and that it's some sort of crime against the dignity of mankind to "deny" a person the right to act on homosexual urges without considering it sin. Just as I continually turn away from my sin as I go through life, I expect the gay man sitting next to me in the pew to be following a similar path of faith. And all the while, we are both deserving of love, support, and human dignity and respect.