The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

premarital sex is not forbidden in the bible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 936 times Debate No: 56856
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

no where does the bible explicitly forbid premarital sex. it has prohibitions on 'fornication', but that only means 'unlawful sex'. that doesn't necessarily include premarital sex. in fact, in the old testament when it is listing various sins including sexual sins, it doesn't mention premarital sex. if it was wrong, you'd think it'd be included.

conservatives expanded the definition of fornication from the original usage. originally it doesn't include premarital sex:
"Strong's Concordance gives 19th century meanings to Greek and Hebrew words found in the Bible. It describes "pornea," as having a somewhat broader usage in Biblical times, compared to today. When used literally, it includes three activities: prostitution, adultery and incest. Figuratively it means idolatry, or sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. However, most conservative Christian churches have greatly expanded the English term "fornication." It is to them a catchall term"
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

a common argument is that Jesus forbade lustful thoughts. that would pretty much inherently prohibit permarital sex.
Matthew 5:27-28 (New International Version 2011)
Mt 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery."
Mt 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

there are a few problems with this approach. the first glaring issue is that he used adultery when he could have said fornication or something else. why is that? adultery is specific to marriage, and lustful thoughts do not necessarily have anything to do with marriage.
the real problem though, is a mistranslation of what Jesus said. "lust" is the same word as "covet" in biblical language. also, "woman" is the same word as "wife".
http://www.jasonstaples.com...
covet, most christians agree, means something excessive, inordinate. that's why you don't see people get hung up on the ten commandments, cause they know it's something excessive, not just passing thoughts. in fact, if you look up covet in the dictionary, it says "inordinate". according to Webster's dictionary "to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably"
so, we basically have Jesus saying, "if you covet another's wife, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart". we already know the covet rule by the commandments, and Jesus is just getting to the "heart" of it, pun intended. noteably, this also causes Jesus's 'adutlery' usage to make a lot more sense.
dsjpk5

Con

To answer your question, here is where the Bible forbids pre-marital
sex: 1 Corinthians 7:1-2. "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is
good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. 2 But since
sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations
with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." (KJV)

So here we see Paul recommending not having sex with a woman, condemning "sexual immorality", and saying the solution to to sexual immorality is to have sex with one's spouse. So clearly, Paul considers all sex outside of marriage to be sinful. There are only two types of sex. 1. Pre-marital, and 2. Post-marital. With this in mind, even if Paul was only referring to prostitution or incest with his use of "pornea", that's still pre-marital sex.

Now, maybe you might say that Paul was always referring to adultery when he used the word "pornea". But then how do you explain where he condemns both adultery and what was translated "fornication"? For example, in the very same letter.to the Corinthians, he says in 6:9-10 " 9 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, (KJV)

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

Finally, Pro's source is wrong to imply that the condemnation of pre-marital sex was a 19th century invention. It was believed by Christians even while the Apostle John was still alive. We know this by reading a passage from an ancient catechism called The Didache (written around 85 A.D.). Notice again the distinction made between adultery and promiscuity:
""" you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt boys; you shall
not be sexually promiscuous; you shall not steal; you shall not
practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a
child or commit infanticide. (Did 2:1-2)

So I have shown two places where the Bible forbids pre-marital sex. Whether or not the other passages Pro quotes condemn it or not is irrelevant. I have proven the Con position. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"So clearly, Paul considers all sex outside of marriage to be sinful."

con makes a pretty big leap there. i'd say all paul is saying is sex is best kept in marriage given all the immorality. but he doesn't define the immorality. it's similar to when Paul says that a priest should ideally have no more than one wife. he wasn't saying you can only have one wife, just that that was preferrable and most conservative. he couldn't really say otherwise, as it was well established that people often had many wives and were still following their religion.

"With this in mind, even if Paul was only referring to prostitution or incest with his use of "pornea", that's still pre-marital sex."

pretty fuzzy logic there. first, con admits paul might not be talking about consensual premarital sex that does not involve prostitution or incest, right after he says it's clear that Paul said otherwise. second, he's conflating premarital sex with prositiution and incest. perhaps he's tecdhincally true that it is premarital sex, but that doesn't mean all premarital sex is bad. at best, he's trying to win the debate on some sort of semantical point given not all premarital sex is permissible.

con cites a source that distingushes adultery and fornication. i never tried to equate pornea with adultery though so i will just let that go. and add that again fornication hasn't been defnied here and does include premarital sex. and that it was conservatives who expanded thedefinition, as shown in the first post.

con is also resorting to quoting possibly apocraphal books? at any rate, promiscuity can be viewed as wrong even if some premarital sex isn't wrong. even most people who have premarital sex will agree "too much is too much". promiscuious basically means "too much". it is self definiting and gives no frame of reference.
also, it should be noted, that con is resorting to extra biblical work, when the debate has been said to be about the bible itself.
dsjpk5

Con

"con makes a pretty big leap there. i'd say all paul is saying is sex is best kept in marriage given all the immorality. but he doesn't define the immorality. it's similar to when Paul says that a priest should ideally have no more than one wife. he wasn't saying you can only have one wife, just that that was preferrable and most conservative. he couldn't really say otherwise, as it was well established that people often had many wives and were still following their religion."

As I explained in the previous round, Paul did more than saying sex is best within marriage. He said men should avoid having sex. But if they find that too difficult, they should only have sex with their wife. (1 Corinthians 7:2).
As for what Paul said about clergy having wives, my opponent has not provided us with the relevant passage, so I will reserve commenting until such a time.

"pretty fuzzy logic there. first, con admits paul might not be talking about consensual premarital sex that does not involve prostitution or incest, right after he says it's clear that Paul said otherwise."

I was playing Devil's advocate.

"second, he's conflating premarital sex with prositiution and incest. perhaps he's tecdhincally true that it is premarital sex, but that doesn't mean all premarital sex is bad. at best, he's trying to win the debate on some sort of semantical point given not all premarital sex is permissible."

This debate is basically over. Notice how my opponent has admitted that "technically" my claims are true that the Bible forbids pre-marital sex (at least sometimes). Remember the title of this debate: "premarital sex is not forbidden in the Bible", but my opponent has admitted that "technically" the Bible forbids it in certain cases. With that in mind, please vote Con.

"con is also resorting to quoting possibly apocraphal books?"

As I started in the previous round, the reason I offered the passage from the Didache was to show that Pro was wrong to claim that Christians didn't condemn pre-marital sex until the 19th century. They did so from they very beginning of the Christian era. So the question is, who's interpretation of the original Greek word "pornea" are you going to trust... those believers who learned from the Apostles themselves, or someone 2,000 years removed, like Pro?

"at any rate, promiscuity can be viewed as wrong even if some premarital sex isn't wrong. "

So my opponent admits that only "some" pre-marital isn't wrong. That implies that some pre-marital sex IS wrong.. This debate has been settled. I have won. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
dsjpk5

Con

Well, considering that my opponent has forfeited this round of the debate, it would seem that Pro agrees with my assessment. I have shown the Bible DOES forbid pre-martial sex. With this in mind, please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
yeah with so many horny teens running around this site, such as yourself, i might want to be careful what i post...
Posted by ANONYMOUS2282 2 years ago
ANONYMOUS2282
why is this an argument?????
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
dairygirl4u2cdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
dairygirl4u2cdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Slam dunk
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
dairygirl4u2cdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
dairygirl4u2cdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and Arguments to CON for the forfeit; S&G for the lack of capitalization;