The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gryephon
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

premarital sex not forbidden by 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 1 vote the winner is...
gryephon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,051 times Debate No: 56903
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

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.
gryephon

Con





no where does the bible explicitly forbid premarital sex.

The Bible states flee youthful lusts, how can you have premarital sex without youthful lust? Also it states “For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.” (1 John 2:16, ESV) How can you have premarital sex without it being a desire of the flesh?

To note, while this doesn’t actually state directly premarital sex is forbidden, but Job himself made a covenant with his eyes not to gaze at virgins. “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1, ESV) The thing is, Job is like the paragon of righteousness outside of Jesus. He wouldn’t even gaze at you even if you never had sex before.




"Strong's Concordance gives 19th century meanings to Greek and Hebrew words found in the Bible. It describes "pornea,"…

When I looked up what your source’s source, I got a 404 error. http://freedom2201.tripod.com...

Though I’m kind of skeptic. “Figuratively it means idolatry, or sexual intercourse between unmarried persons.” It itself recognizes that it can be translated as sexual intercourse.




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

Well it’s not surprising for Jesus to say something like that if He is the God from the OT (if you acknowledge the trinity). Often times God in the OT would relate his relationship with believers like that of a marriage union, he had his prophet Hosea marry a prostitute to symbolize how Israel was playing the harlot on him, which is the basic story of the book of Hosea. Paul talked about being betrothed to one husband (Jesus) (2 Corinthians 11:2). The image is even ingrained into prophetic text of revelations (http://biblia.com...). So in some sense you do commit adultery with other women\men by looking at them with desire, because God might think its adultery against him, He is a jealous God after all.




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".

Woman is woman. It’s pretty clear that woman is not a mistranslation with wife. In Greek there is no single word for “wife” like in English, in it you would have to use more words like “your\his woman” to indicate a wife (e.g. τP52;ν γυναQ50;κα αP16;τοQ66;, “the woman of him” indicates a wife). γυναQ50;κα alone means “a woman”. The reason why they translate it woman here is because it sounds just like that in Greek.

Your source’s reasoning is tricky and confusing because he’s using the Greek LXX translation which is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text while interpreting O52;πιθυμQ34;σαι from an English translation (which probably isn’t based on the Septuagint in the OT anyway). With similar reasoning of his I could point that תַחְמֹ֞ד doesn’t necessarily mean covet directly like your defining it, but means “to desire, take pleasure in” from which O52;πιθυμQ34;σαι is translated from. (Hebrew to Greek) So this would be a problem with the LXX if their is a problem, but I think that O52;πιθυμQ34;σαι can mean "desire for" :\ . The reason I think that word is translated specifically covet is because the context is talking about your neighbor’s possessions, but not necessarily because the Hebrew word itself means covet directly.

http://biblehub.com...


No Translator translate it that way.
When I looked up how other translations translate it, all of them seem to translate it either lust or desire, there doesn’t seem to be any that say covet. Translators are the ones that know the language, apparently none that I see translate it covet. Historically speaking i know not of anyone that interpret it that way. You can do a parallel search, bible hub has one.

http://biblehub.com...


It's inconsitent
. I would like to point that it would be inconsistent for him to mean covet here instead of lust. You shouldn’t be coveting a married woman, that’s like stating the obvious, which is the problem, stating the obvious. The rest of the text in Mathew 5 he is stating a string of highly absurd statements. In verse 32 he states “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” In verse 34 “Do not take an oath at all…” Verse 39 “But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Verse 44 “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” all of them is just as absurd as saying whoever looks at a woman to lust… Your source reasoning is that he’s just reaffirming what the law says, which isn’t the case with all the others.



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"

It also can mean “to wish for earnestly” in example “He won the prize they all coveted.” It doesn’t always entail ownership of another person's possesion.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

1 John verse you describe seems to be stating that 'everything' that is a fleshly desire is from the world. that includes pleasures that no one would describe as being sinful. so whether we should include premarital sex into that category or the sinful category is yet to be established.

Job may have made a personal covenant. much like people never get married as a personal covenant. doesn't mean it's applicable to all. also, we don't know what exactly that covenant entails as it could entail just going to far. coveting, more precisely. no one thinks mere desires for something you don't own that is another's is sinful. it's when it goes too far that is the problem. that's what the definition of covet is in most bibles too.

con's argument about why Jesus chose adultery is a plausible scenario, sure. but, i gave definitions for the words Jesus used, 'woman' 'covet' etc that show what Jesus could have very reasonably meant. and it would better reconcile why he used adultery, and would reconile with the ten commandments etc.

con has some compelling arguments in the rest of his points. (to the point of possible concession) all i can really do aside from not conceding is stand behind what i've said as he has not 'necessarily' negated what i've said.
gryephon

Con







1 John verse you describe seems to be stating that 'everything' that is a fleshly desire is from the world. that includes pleasures that no one would describe as being sinful. so whether we should include premarital sex into that category or the sinful category is yet to be established
.

Yes, certainly there are grey-area sins that some Christians think are sin (or cause for sin that makes it a sin itself) that other Christians don’t, obviously Amish do on technology. The thing with premarital sex I can’t think of where it is edifying to the spirit, and not just to the flesh. Obviously procreation (SEX) with a wife has been a command by God “be fruitful and multiply”, but never has sex outside of marriage ever been commanded. If you receive no revelations from God to do it, than you do it to please the flesh and not the spirit.



Job may have made a personal covenant. much like people never get married as a personal covenant. doesn't mean it's applicable to all. also, we don't know what exactly that covenant entails as it could entail just going to far. coveting, more precisely. no one thinks mere desires for something you don't own that is another's is sinful. it's when it goes too far that is the problem. that's what the definition of covet is in most bibles too.

You are correct that it doesn’t necessary follow logically. The point was more like it wasn’t consistent with the patriarchs of righteousness, as I don’t really picture them as looking at porn all day, or enjoying premarital sex for that matter.

But out of curiosity can a man be considered pure in heart if he obsessively craves the vagina of a woman? There is a modern term for that, "perverts". “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” (Matthew 5:8)





con's argument about why Jesus chose adultery is a plausible scenario, sure. but, i gave definitions for the words Jesus used, 'woman' 'covet' etc that show what Jesus could have very reasonably meant. and it would better reconcile why he used adultery, and would reconile with the ten commandments etc.

Yes you did give definitions, I pointed out that there was an alternate on covet by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary (Though not saying translators should use covet, as it might be confusing). And woman I pointed out that It’s not wife, because Greek doesn’t have a word that distinguishes the word “wife” like in English, you have to use multiple words (e.g. “his woman” = wife in Greek), but the Greek is clearly just talking about a “woman”. The thing is, if Jesus meant that, why didn’t he make it more clear? In Greek it sounds like it does in English “whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery…” You go up to someones door during that time and say that, that's just how it sounds like in greek.

Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

if you recant your position, i will find you a situation that lends itself to you having sex w a woman who is a nine or ten on a scale of ten.....
gryephon

Con

What!?!??!

lol, haha! =D

Anyway, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
dairygirl4u2cgryephonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's last round is a personal attack on Con, as such it is a conduct violation in the extreme. There is no doubt about it, especially from the following quote "i will find you a situation that lends itself to you having sex w a woman who is a nine or ten on a scale of ten....." Though Con was pretty much cool taking all the heat, personal attacks are a conduct violation. Thus Conduct to Con. Pro's way of expressing arguments are very poor, often requiring multiple re-reads for me to understand. it is enough to warrant another S & G point. There are no guidelines for S & G, penalties are given to those who failed to express their contentions properly, such as in the case of Pro. Oh and also, Con, you should reject her ransom, not worth it. LOL.