Read The Forum Rules: We have a clear set of rules to keep the forum running smoothly. Click here to review them.

Thread Closed 
There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
Author Message
Samseau Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 14,541
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 293
Post: #1
Lightbulb There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
Perhaps the greatest problem of Christianity today is that many of the messages of Christ have been perverted with time. Much like a game of telephone, the word of Salvation has been perverted by translations and various political interests across millennia. Most of what people believe about Christ's teachings today is actually nothing like how it was practiced in the first Century AD following the immediate death of Christ. As to how or why the gospel of Christ became distorted will be the subject of many future posts, but for now I want to focus on just one perversion which I believe is causing many Christian men to suffer tremendously, especially in today's day and age of the "empowered" slut.

This issue, is, of course, the supposed sin of "premarital sex." By the end of this article, I will have shown there is absolutely no text in either the New Testament or Old Testament prohibiting premarital sex. I will have shown that the only sexual sins for men according to the Bible are:

1. Using whores (this includes internet porn!)
2. Rape
3. Incest
4. Adultery (cheating on one's spouse)
5. Homosexuality
6. Beastiality

And that's it. For women, there are a different set of sexual sins, but that's another topic for another day. Let's just focus on men for now.

To prove this, let's examine what presently passes for common knowledge among Christians. If you google, "is premarital sex as sin," one of the top hits is a Protestant website called gotquestions.org which attempts to offer guidance on many moral questions, including their position on premarital sex (screencap):

Quote:Question: "What does the Bible say about sex before marriage?"

Answer: There is no Hebrew or Greek word used in the Bible that precisely refers to sex before marriage. The Bible undeniably condemns adultery and sexual immorality, but is sex before marriage considered sexually immoral? According to 1 Corinthians 7:2, “yes” is the clear answer: “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” In this verse, Paul states that marriage is the “cure” for sexual immorality. First Corinthians 7:2 is essentially saying that, because people cannot control themselves and so many are having immoral sex outside of marriage, people should get married. Then they can fulfill their passions in a moral way.

Since 1 Corinthians 7:2 clearly includes sex before marriage in the definition of sexual immorality, all of the Bible verses that condemn sexual immorality as being sinful also condemn sex before marriage as sinful. Sex before marriage is included in the biblical definition of sexual immorality. There are numerous Scriptures that declare sex before marriage to be a sin (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes complete abstinence before marriage. Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations of which God approves (Hebrews 13:4).

The above view that premarital sex is sinful is very common. I grew up believing it was sinful myself, and it caused me great anguish. However, after doing careful research I can see us Christians men have been mislead for centuries. To prove this, as with any Biblical exegesis, it comes down to the text. Without scripture to support a position, there can be no claim to authority.

Thus, let's start with each of the scriptures cited above. To show how the message of Christ has been corrupted over time, we will compare the popular translation of the New International Version (NIV) to Young's Literal Translation (YLT) which shows how words have been changed against their original intent.

Quote:Corinthians 7:2 (NIV): 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.

Corinthians 7:2 (YLT): And concerning the things of which ye wrote to me: good [it is] for a man not to touch a woman, 2 and because of the whoredom let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her proper husband;

Notice, the literal translation is completely different from what the actual text says in Koine Greek (this was the original language used for the NT), and it is only condemning prostitution! In ancient Koine Greek, the word used above was pornia, which is what the modern word porn is based on. Pornia only referred to sexual crimes listed above: adultery, rape, incest, whoring, and homosexuality, but especially for prostitution. Premarital sex was never mentioned back in the day because women did not engage in casual sex back in 0 AD. Things like birth control pills, STD medication, and on-demand abortion did not exist. Sex was a very valuable commodity, and to waste it on casual sex would have been seen as profligacy (such as burning down your house for fun). The only way men could get sex in those days without committing a crime was to either rent out a prostitute or buy a wife.

Continuing with the passages listed by the Protestants above:

Quote:Acts 15:20 (NIV): 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

Acts 15:20 (YLT): 20 but to write to them to abstain from the pollutions of the idols, and the whoredom, and the strangled thing; and the blood;

Again, we see here that what is "sexual immorality" in modern translations is merely whoredom in the original.

Quote:1 Corinthians 5:1 (NIV): It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife.

1 Corinthians 5:1 (YLT): Whoredom is actually heard of among you, and such whoredom as is not even named among the nations -- as that one hath the wife of the father! --

Again, the original word is whore and here St. Paul is talking about making a whore out of one's mother which is obviously both incestual not to mention ridiculously perverse - a father selling his wife to his own son?

Quote:1 Corinthians 6:13 (NIV): You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

1 Corinthians 6:13 (YLT): the meats [are] for the belly, and the belly for the meats. And God both this and these shall make useless; and the body [is] not for whoredom, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body;

Quote:1 Corinthians 6:18 (NIV): Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

1 Corinthians 6:18 (YLT): 18 flee the whoredom; every sin -- whatever a man may commit -- is without the body, and he who is committing whoredom, against his own body doth sin.

Same mistranslation, once again. Also notice how often whoring is mentioned? Whoring is seriously bad for the soul, according to St. Paul - an apostle - so the beta males who are using porn because they can't get a real woman are damaging themselves far more than alphas who don't need porn but can score with sluts.

I've quoted enough of Corinthians for the reader to get the point. Let's move onto some other works.

Quote:Galatians 5:19 (NIV): 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;

Galatians 5:19 (YLT): 19 And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Here the literal translation is almost completely different than the modern one and makes me a bit depressed at just how bad it is. Notice the sins: cheating on your spouse, selling your body, not taking regular showers, and deliberately provoking lust out of others. Notice, the word lasciviousness could be interpreted to never approach a woman you desire since she may feel provoked into lust - but that would be taking the word too far since at this point it would mean it could be sinful to merely speak to a woman. Provoking lust is more of a direct action, such as a woman wearing short skirts, bathing suits, or for a man to wear a speedo. There is a difference between displaying beauty and being vulgarly sexual, as the etymological dictionary of lasciviousness reveals. Intuitively lasciviousness is a female dominated sin. A man taking off his shirt could be considered lascivious but it depends on the context; in most cases it would not.

Quote:Ephesians 5:3 (NIV): 3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

Ephesians 5:3 (YLT): 3 and whoredom, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becometh saints;

It's like the NIV version doesn't even try to capture the original intent of the text here.

Quote:Colossians 3:5 (NIV): 5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.

Colossians 3:5 (YLT): 5 Put to death, then, your members that [are] upon the earth -- whoredom, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and the covetousness, which is idolatry --

No mention of sex for its own sake but there is the mention of passion. Passion could be interpreted as wanting sex because a man is horny, but look at all the words next to it: whoring, evil desire, uncleanness, covetousness which is idolatry. In other words, it's not simply desiring a beautiful woman in itself which is sinful, but desiring a woman to the point where you're willing to pay for sex from her or you desire her so much only you can have her and no one else can which makes passion sinful.

Interestingly enough, infatuated oneitis is sinful. I bet you never knew oneitis is a sin according to the Bible, but now you do.

Quote:1 Thessalonians 4:3 (NIV): 3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality;

1 Thessalonians 4:3 (YLT): 3 for this is the will of God -- your sanctification; that ye abstain from the whoredom,

Same translation error.

Quote:Jude 1:7: (NIV) 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude 1:7: (YLT) 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before -- an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.

Homosexuality and whoring. They were selling themselves as men to other men and going after other flesh means beastiality.

And that's all the scripture the Protestant page of gotquestions.org has to offer. As you can see, the sexual sins mentioned for men, are, time and time again:

1. Using whores (this includes internet porn!)
2. Rape
3. Incest
4. Adultery (cheating on one's spouse)
5. Homosexuality
6. Beastiality

No mention of premarital sex; that is, a woman having accepted a man's advances. In another article, I will show that it is sinful for the woman to accept the man's advances without securing some kind of commitment, but it is not sinful for the man to make the advances or engage in consensual sex in the first place. Indeed, we all know how much St. Paul is loved by the Protestants, so why do the Protestants ignore the following passage?

Quote:1 Corinthians 6:9 (YLT) 9 have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

I can't think of a single thing more emasculating than a single, unmarried man who does not pursue or sexes a woman he desires. On the contrary, if it is not the effeminate man who shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, then we know the masculine man is what God wants. Not homosexuals, not weaklings who pursue married women, not men who masturbate to porn or purchase disgusting whores, but masculine men who go into the world and takes the beautiful unmarried girl. Thus what the Protestants teach on premarital sex is wrong.

So much for the Protestants. What about the Catholics? Believe it or not, the Catholics are the ones to blame for starting the tradition of anti-sex Christianity which the Protestants unknowingly inherited.

To show this, let's head on over to the Vatican's website and view what their Catechism has to say:

Quote:III. The Different Kinds of Sins

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. the Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127

1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. the root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

Now, we come to crux of the problem. The word "fornication," which is how the Catholics translate many of the original works of the Bible when the word "pornia" is used, does not mean what most people think it means. Indeed, thanks to a translation error by St. Thomas Aquinas, we find how the giant telephone game of Christian teachings became perverted over time.

But first, just to show how deep and confused even the Catholics are about their own teachings, let's examine a part of the text of the catechism itself (screencap):

Quote:There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. the Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, [...]

First, note that there is a typo right on the Vatican's site. "the" is not capitalized at the start of the second sentence. This careless error is a microcosm of the great error I am about to show you: the word fornication. Notice, they use the word fornication, but notice that in all of the translations above fornication is not used. Where does fornication come from? Notice, the Vatican says it quotes the Letter to the Galatians. They provide a link which leads to the following text (screencap):

Quote:Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness,

So, oddly enough, right within the Vatican's own catechism the word prohibiting sex is missing from their own citations! And if one follows their links provided to other parts of the Bible, no mention of the word fornication is found. For example, they cite Matthew 15:8 (screencap):

Quote:For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.

And the word fornication has been mysteriously replaced with the word unchastity!

Thus, we are left with the mysterious addition of the word fornication introduced into the Bible with no citations or translations provided.

Therefore, since the Vatican is covering up some sort of error, let us turn our attention to what the common believers of Catholicism tell others as they have been taught growing up. I googled up http://www.catholic-defense.com, and here's what they have to say about premarital sex for men (screencap):

Quote:"It is written (Tob. 4:13): 'Take heed to keep thyself. . . from all fornication, and beside thy wife never endure to know a crime.' Now crime denotes a mortal sin. Therefore fornication and all intercourse with other than one's wife is a mortal sin." - St. Thomas Aquinas ("Summa Theologica" 13th century A.D.)

And now we reach the conclusion of the puzzle. Thomas Aquinas, the most influential, intelligent, and greatest of philosophers and theologians of the middle ages, is at the bottom of this telephone game, who wrote his major works in 1260-1275. Notice he quotes from the Book of Tobit (or Tobias): "keep thyself... from all fornication," but what does fornication mean?

Let us check an etymological dictionary (screencap):

Quote:c. 1300, from Old French fornicacion "fornication, lewdness; prostitution; idolatry" (12c.), from Late Latin fornicationem (nominative fornicatio), noun of action from past participle stem of fornicari "to fornicate," from Latin fornix (genitive fornicis) "brothel" (Juvenal, Horace), originally "arch, vaulted chamber, a vaulted opening, a covered way," probably an extension, based on appearance, from a source akin to fornus "brick oven of arched or domed shape" (see furnace). Strictly, "voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman;" extended in the Bible to adultery. The sense extension in Latin is perhaps because Roman prostitutes commonly solicited from under the arches of certain buildings.

We discover the word fornication did not take on its present meaning until 1300 AD, several decades after Thomas Aquinas wrote his authoritative works! Fornicators originally referred to men who went to the place "under the arch" (the fornix) which is where the street whores hung out at night in Roman towns. The word fornication, in the few places it does appear within the Bible, it still just talking about prostitution and not premarital sex!

It appears Thomas changed the meaning of the word fornication, either on purpose or accident, due to Catholic biases at the time given to him as a child most likely. Remember, one of the major differences between the Western Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church that helped drive the great schism of 1054 was the role of sex within the clergy. The Catholics always held negative attitudes on sex, and it was generally frowned upon priests to marry and have children. Conversely, Eastern Orthodox held no such bias but prohibited any rank higher than a priest within the church from marriage. The Catholics wanted everyone to be like St. Paul, who was an asexual and called his ability to have no desire for women a "gift" that allowed him to preach the word of God tirelessly. The Eastern Orthodox, however, held no such pretensions that 99.9% of males could ever achieve this.

The Eastern Orthodox, tragically, ceased to be an influence in 1200 AD because of the Fourth Crusade. The darkest event in all of Christian history, when Christians betrayed Christians, came about as Catholic Crusaders sacked, pillaged, and raped the richest city in the world, Constantinople, also the seat of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Most of the booty taken from Constantinople was then brought to the Vatican, who then ruled over Europe with an Iron Fist for the next 500 years because they had so much of the wealth of the old Roman empire.

When Thomas Aquinas wrote his works in 1260 AD, there was no serious challengers to the Catholic school of thought as the Eastern Orthodox Church was mortally wounded and still bleeding out (200 years later they would be fully conquered by the Turkish Muslims). Aquinas, being the intellectual champion of the Catholics, was taken to be an authority and no one seriously noticed or cared about his use of the word fornication and the word fornication entered the common lexicon as meaning "sex in general" instead of "using prostitutes." Combining all of the above with the fact that 95% of Europe was illiterate at the time Aquinas wrote his works, and it makes sense word fornication was changed without anyone's notice.

Thus even when the Protestants rebelled against the Catholic church, they still assumed the word fornication meant "sex in general" instead of it's original use as just "buying a whore." And this is how the telephone game of Christ's teachings were perverted over time, by various political forces and human error.

I must comment that this error in teaching has been a tremendous burden on my own life, as even I was raised believing sex before marriage to be a grave sin I would need to repent for. But now that the internet has arrived, men can enter a new age of knowledge where the combined research of millions of men can be put together to form a complete picture of what happened in the past and where we must go in the future. So, unless I have made an error in the work above, I hereby state all Christian men to be the masculine man they were always meant to be, and fulfill their sexual desires without any restrictions other than the following:

1. Using whores (this includes porn!)
2. Rape
3. Incest
4. Adultery (cheating on one's spouse)
5. Homosexuality
6. Beastiality

Of course, there are many other sins a good Christian man should avoid when dealing with the opposite sex that would apply to interactions with all people, such as lying, but it's beyond the scope of this post to cover everything. More will be explained in the future. For now, as it is written, "the truth will set you free, for the truth is the light of God."

Contributor at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
06-02-2015 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 62 users Like Samseau's post:
turkishcandy, Lizard King, Kish, tarquin, Nightwing, TigerMandingo, MiscBrah, azulsombra, big poppa, Suits, lskdfjldsf, DJ-Matt, vinman, SunW, MidWest, Mage, Tuthmosis, getdownonit, Frost, Katdogbirdduck, Moto, Wayout, didaskalos, Bear Hands, BillyTalented, SirSpanky, Seneh, Patriarch, Handsome Creepy Eel, Aer, heavy, Roosh, H1N1, Spectrumwalker, Comte De St. Germain, thoughtgypsy, Sosa, Khan, tynamite, Snowplow, Nevsky, DarkTriad, Matrixdude, chadverdad, DamienCasanova, Cortés, , RBerkley, Tex, Kaligula, blacknwhitespade, Built to Fade, , Off The Reservation, Running Turtles, Tactician, StrikeBack, Going strong, PapayaTapper, Australia Sucks, Basil II, Emperor Constantine
Magnesium Chloride Offline
Banned

Posts: 50
Joined: Feb 2015
Post: #2
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
I have been thinking about something along those lines. Personally Im agnostic, but I do like Christianity(but think their idea of shit like swearing, premarital sex, going to hell etc is fucked up). If God did exist, then why would he make guys want to fuck sluts so bad but then also make it wrong? Why do modern Christians often dislike polygamy when I want to breed with multiple bitches?

My conclusion was something less definitive, and yours is better- but I was thinking, premarital sex was probably only wrong in the olden days when people got married young, like below the "age of consent". So guys wouldnt have been horny for long periods of time.

Also, why only say premarital sex isnt a sin for men? It probably wouldnt be a sin for women either- because it doesnt make sense for the only way to have(non homo, non bestiality) premarital sex as a man would be to make the woman sin(adultery or premarital sex).
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2015 05:41 PM by Magnesium Chloride.)
06-02-2015 05:39 PM
Find all posts by this user
infowarrior1 Offline
Ostrich
****

Posts: 1,866
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 10
Post: #3
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
Well there is 2 passages that deals with premarital sex with a virgin:

Exodus 22:16-17
16"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.17If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Deuteronomy 28:25-26
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and he seizes her and they are discovered, (29) he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has had his way with her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
06-02-2015 11:53 PM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 4 users Like infowarrior1's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel, RBerkley, Australia Sucks, billbudsocket
RawGod Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,062
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 35
Post: #4
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
1 Corinthians 7:9 is the clearest refutation of this point of view:

"But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I [i.e. unmarried]. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Clearly Paul does not accept as an option an unmarried man relieving his lusts through fornication. For those without self-control, the only option is to marry.

BTW, Xtianity is bogus. On account of there actually being no god, and Jesus being just some preacher who was executed and didn't really come back from the dead, instead rotting in his grave while his distressed followers made up stories.
Anyway, you can't twist Xtianity into some player-friendly neo-masculine version. That shit is over. Let it rot with its dead god.

Dr Johnson rumbles with the RawGod. And lives to regret it.

I have had this sig since 2015 and received thousands of post likes; yet not one person has commented on my sig. Perhaps you're familiar with the work it parodies? Let me know!
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2015 12:08 AM by RawGod.)
06-03-2015 12:03 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 6 users Like RawGod's post:
dies irae, Handsome Creepy Eel, SwordfishTrombonist, whateverfuckit, Master Of My Own Kingdom, Australia Sucks
SydneyD Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 192
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 3
Post: #5
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
• doubt there is any authority for making monogamy mandatory as well. Correct me if i'm wrong.
06-03-2015 12:39 AM
Find all posts by this user
Samseau Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 14,541
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 293
Post: #6
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
(06-03-2015 12:03 AM)RawGod Wrote:  1 Corinthians 7:9 is the clearest refutation of this point of view:

"But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I [i.e. unmarried]. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Clearly Paul does not accept as an option an unmarried man relieving his lusts through fornication. For those without self-control, the only option is to marry.

It's like you posted without reading a single thing I wrote. I clearly explained why the word fornication doesn't mean what you or 99% of people think it means and how etymological dictionaries show the word fornication was changed around 1300 after Thomas Aquinas mistranslated the word against its original intent.

Read the above essay very carefully, it's long and a tad complex but I believe text is on my side.

Quote:BTW, Xtianity is bogus. On account of there actually being no god, and Jesus being just some preacher who was executed and didn't really come back from the dead, instead rotting in his grave while his distressed followers made up stories.
Anyway, you can't twist Xtianity into some player-friendly neo-masculine version. That shit is over. Let it rot with its dead god.

This thread isn't for convincing anyone here. If you're not motivated enough to research the perspectives of billions of men who have believed in the Lord and see their motivations, then obviously there is nothing I can say to convince you.

For an incredible story you could also check out Constantine the Great - a man who never even heard of the Bible or Jesus, yet received a vision from God "In This Sign You Will Conquer" with the ChiRho symbol and went on to defeat an army twice his size. He then converted 80% of the Roman empire from paganism to Christ. But hey - God is bullshit, right?

InfoWarrior:

Quote:Well there is 2 passages that deals with premarital sex with a virgin:

Exodus 22:16-17
16"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.17If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Deuteronomy 28:25-26
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and he seizes her and they are discovered, (29) he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has had his way with her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

When is the last time you've slept with a virgin? Laugh I agree that taking a girl's virginity under false pretenses (such as promising marriage but then ditching her) is a huge sin. But the fact is most fathers cannot control their daughters who lose their virginity to some loser in their high school and by the time any of us meet a girl she's already been defiled.

Also, those passages were written in a time when women were married off between the ages of 12-16 and were to prevent older men from defiling young girls; we still have those laws in contemporary times, they are called "statutory rape laws." If anything, the laws were much more fair back then - marrying or paying 50 shekels is way easier than 20 years in prison, don't you think?

SydneyD:

I'm actually doing research on how much monogamy was necessary back then. I'm working with my priest who can read ancient Greek to look up ancient Cannon law to see what the rules were for married men in regards to their female slaves. Remember slavery was extremely common back then, and a master could always sex up his female slaves even if he was married. My priest said he wants to examine 6th-9th century cannon law to see if Christians back then understood the Bible to have changed the rules regarding that, or if Adultery was strictly for married woman or strictly for not taking other men's wives or both.

Magnesium:

Quote:Also, why only say premarital sex isnt a sin for men? It probably wouldnt be a sin for women either- because it doesnt make sense for the only way to have(non homo, non bestiality) premarital sex as a man would be to make the woman sin(adultery or premarital sex).

It's definitely a sin for women because they are throwing away their most precious asset, first their virginity and then their sexuality in general.

A man's sexuality isn't valuable but a woman's is. Don't make the mistake of thinking men and women are equal.

Contributor at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2015 01:35 AM by Samseau.)
06-03-2015 01:06 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 13 users Like Samseau's post:
RickyGP, Benoit, infowarrior1, Bear Hands, BillyTalented, SvenTuga, Comte De St. Germain, Snowplow, Tim in real life, Soothesayer, Master Of My Own Kingdom, Built to Fade, Tactician
RawGod Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,062
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 35
Post: #7
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
Samseau, your argument in this unnecessarily convoluted article seems to be that the greek porneia, translated fornication or whoredom in the King James and sexual immorality in more modern versions, does not apply to single Christian men having sex with (unpaid) single women. You seem to base this solely on the idea that as extra-marital sex was strictly locked down in society of the day, the writers of the Bible just couldn't conceive of casual sex as we know it today. This is ludicrous, false and transparently an attempt to make a loophole so that you can both be a player and claim to be a good Christian man.

The text I cited stills stands as a clear ruling by the apostle Paul and does not rest on the interpretation of fornication/porneia.

I can accept that this thread is not the place to discuss the merits of Xtianity more broadly. But I believe that following this road is a cul-de-sac and leads only to a form of cultural LARPing where the guys who started following Mystery in 2005 age into bearded patriarchs reclaiming religion, while laughably still claiming religious sanction to rail yet more birds.

This is not the way out to resolve the collision of the manosphere's paradoxical elements of libertinism and traditionalism, which is admittedly a pressing issue for many.

Dr Johnson rumbles with the RawGod. And lives to regret it.

I have had this sig since 2015 and received thousands of post likes; yet not one person has commented on my sig. Perhaps you're familiar with the work it parodies? Let me know!
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2015 01:31 AM by RawGod.)
06-03-2015 01:23 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 11 users Like RawGod's post:
Sooth, Frost, TheWastelander, Blobert, Enigma, Handsome Creepy Eel, samifon, whateverfuckit, Tytalus, Spectrumwalker, Built to Fade
Samseau Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 14,541
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 293
Post: #8
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
(06-03-2015 01:23 AM)RawGod Wrote:  Samseau, your argument in this unnecessarily convoluted article seems to be that the greek porneia, translated fornication or whoredom in the King James and sexual immorality in more modern versions, does not apply to single Christian men having sex with (unpaid) single women. You seem to base this solely on the idea that as extra-marital sex was strictly locked down in society of the day, the writers of the Bible just couldn't conceive of casual sex as we know it today. This is ludicrous, false and transparently an attempt to make a loophole so that you can both be a player and claim to be a good Christian man.

It's not ludicrous or false, as Jewish men had plenty of extra-marital sex in the form of female slaves back in the day, just like all men in those days did. Adultery was generally defined as taking of another man's wife or renting out whores.

I know everything posted above contradicts most modern teachings but it's because the meanings of words became distorted over time.

Also, if the apostles were alive today they'd be blasting the fathers of the daughters, then the daughters, then perhaps maybe young men but young men would be last on the list. Young men today are behaving as young men should, desiring of sex as God made them. I doubt they'd even focus on young men because men aren't the problem today.

Quote:The text I cited stills stands as a clear ruling by the apostle Paul and does not rest on the interpretation of fornication/porneia.

Again, pornia means whoring and so does fornication.

What St. Paul said was to marry instead of using whores. However, we also know from the Old Testament that it was a sin to marry a non-virginal woman.

Hence the expression, "You cannot turn a whore into a housewife." Marrying a non-virgin was quite literally casting pearls before swine.

So if men aren't allowed to marry non-virgins but 95% of women today throw away their virginity it would follow St. Paul would prohibit men from engaging in any relationship with women today, which is clearly not the case and a gross perversion of the teachings. God wanted men to be fruitful and multiply, which cannot occur in today's world if men aren't allowed to marry non-virgins but are only allowed to have sex with their married spouse.

Hence the contradiction is easily removed by looking back at the original words - all were condemnations of whores but nothing against single women who men could naturally meet and seduce.

Quote:I can accept that this thread is not the place to discuss the merits of Xtianity more broadly. But I believe that following this road is a cul-de-sac and leads only to a form of cultural LARPing where the guys who started following Mystery in 2005 age into bearded patriarchs reclaiming religion, while laughably still claiming religious sanction to rail yet more birds.

This is not the way out to resolve the collision of the manosphere's paradoxical elements of libertinism and traditionalism, which is admittedly a pressing issue for many.

Again, I have the text on my side - what do you have? And for the record this isn't my way of just being a hypocrite. For most of my life I blindly believed the teachings handed down to me which were actually translation errors accumulated over time via the telephone game effect, as I linked in my OP at the bottom.

I've also shown this research to my priest who has been running my Church for nearly 40 years, and I asked him if he could find any errors in my research. I told him about how fornication had been changed in meaning in 1300 AD and he was shocked but said it made perfect sense given what the Catholics did to the Orthodox in the fourth crusade. And this is a guy who used to believe fornication meant "sex in general" his entire life who quickly realized the truth was not what it appeared to be.

Contributor at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2015 01:51 AM by Samseau.)
06-03-2015 01:47 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 11 users Like Samseau's post:
azulsombra, lskdfjldsf, Frost, BillyTalented, MiscBrah, Handsome Creepy Eel, SvenTuga, Comte De St. Germain, Snowplow, DamienCasanova, Built to Fade
RawGod Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,062
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 35
Post: #9
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
(06-03-2015 01:47 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Again, pornia means whoring and so does fornication.

What St. Paul said was to marry instead of using whores. However, we also know from the Old Testament that it was a sin to marry a non-virginal woman.

A whore was any single woman willing to have sex outside marriage. The injunction to marry was motivated partly by the idea that women were to be protected as sisters (Golden Rule, ring any bells?), not seduced into being (paid or unpaid) whores.

Your reading has no support in the Christian tradition, and to refute me on the specifics of the porneia/whoredom reading, which is what it comes down to, you will need to dig into the original Greek and get some substantial scholarly citations on your side. I admit I'm not doing the work to do that right now, but it's your crusade, not mine, as I'm not even a Christian.

Also, only Protestant churches will buy your argument that "the Bible doesn't prohibit it". The Catholic and Orthodox churches give weight to their 2000 years of lived tradition, as well as Scripture, so that's what you are going up against. You say that they have allowed error to creep in, which you still need to establish, but aren't they guided by the Holy Spirit?

Dr Johnson rumbles with the RawGod. And lives to regret it.

I have had this sig since 2015 and received thousands of post likes; yet not one person has commented on my sig. Perhaps you're familiar with the work it parodies? Let me know!
06-03-2015 02:21 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 8 users Like RawGod's post:
Rutting Elephant, Frost, Blobert, Enigma, Handsome Creepy Eel, da_zeb, Tytalus, Built to Fade
Sonsowey Offline
Hummingbird
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 3,303
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 52
Post: #10
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
Oh good, now I can go fuck sluts!

RVF Book Club February: Julius Evola - Revolt Against the Modern World
06-03-2015 02:27 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 2 users Like Sonsowey's post:
Beyond Borders, RBerkley
Orion Offline
Kingfisher
***
Gold Member

Posts: 600
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 8
Post: #11
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
I would disagree with conclusion Samseau brought up, but before i do that, i would pay attention to some things:

1. Translation remains number one problem Bible interpretation faces today. Not only that translators are often quite liberal in their approach when translating certain passages, but quite often, we simply don't know what a certain word means precisely. We know certain old Hebrew or Koine Greek word, we know it's meaning, but unfortunately no one is exactly sure of it's connotation, strength, application, how it differs from synonyms et cetera, because obviously, those languages are not spoken for centuries. That creates what seems like a huge problem to Bible readers who want to be whole authentic, but what is actually just a consequence of:

2. Biblical autism. This is something that is pretty much a product of "sola scriptura" dogma of protestant Christians, and that is nowadays emphasized by Evangelicals. While at first glance, it would seem reasonable to refer to Bible as your only and ultimate source of religious authority (since Bible is, according to evangelicals, "infallible word of God"), there are numerous problems with that approach. The most obvious one is that it inevitably creates thousands of dogmas and thousands of approaches. Then, there is also problem of historicity. As we know, New Testament was written after death and resurrection of Christ. Hence, belief that it is infallible word of Christ is well, a belief. Christ himself never mentioned Bible. He never instructed any of his followers to write one, refer to one, or anything like that because it simply did not exist. So when going deep into the Bible to find your religious beliefs you will be quite subjective in your approach - you will treat some things as strict commands, other as advices, other as teaching, other as cool stories, and everyone will have his own interpretation. It does satisfy the believer, i agree, but for society, it does no good. Fundamental Christians will say that society ultimately does not matter. It's salvation that matters according to them.


Now let's compare for example, these verses. One translation clearly states fornication is serious sin

Corinthians 6:9, King James Version

Quote: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

Corinthians 6:9, New International Version

Quote:Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

Where "sexual immorality" is open to interpretation.

Most strict translations actually use world fornication (including the one in my native language). Fornication is without doubt, pre-marital sex.

Every form of pre-marital sex with a virgin is a double headed coin therefore. She necessarily loses her virginity, and hence we have modern society don't we ?

"Eyes speak what heart tells them"
06-03-2015 05:13 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 3 users Like Orion's post:
Suits, da_zeb, blacknwhitespade
lskdfjldsf Offline
Kingfisher
***
Gold Member

Posts: 932
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 51
Post: #12
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
Samseau this is some serious research, I hope to see you writing for ROK on spirituality. It's refreshing to see discussion around particulars.

From my understanding of Scripture (particularly the Old Testament), the worship of false idols is the ultimate sin. Wealth itself isn't sinful, but living a life dedicated to the pursuit of it distracts from living a life devoted to God. I believe sex falls into a similar category; it's human to engage in it as it's human to receive a paycheck, but the pursuit of it as an idol (source of value or self-worth) is the ultimate offense.

Many people are gifted with talent, looks, social abilities, wealth, etc. If those things themselves were sinful, we'd all be born poor with no ability to attract mates. The test is in enjoying those gifts, and other joys provided to us in life, without living lives devoted to them.

Quote:“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:19-21 (NIV)
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2015 09:10 AM by lskdfjldsf.)
06-03-2015 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 7 users Like lskdfjldsf's post:
Samseau, Frost, Katdogbirdduck, Bear Hands, SvenTuga, RBerkley, Built to Fade
Samseau Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 14,541
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 293
Post: #13
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
(06-03-2015 05:13 AM)Orion Wrote:  I would disagree with conclusion Samseau brought up, but before i do that, i would pay attention to some things:

1. Translation remains number one problem Bible interpretation faces today. Not only that translators are often quite liberal in their approach when translating certain passages, but quite often, we simply don't know what a certain word means precisely. We know certain old Hebrew or Koine Greek word, we know it's meaning, but unfortunately no one is exactly sure of it's connotation, strength, application, how it differs from synonyms et cetera, because obviously, those languages are not spoken for centuries.

False. We know what the words meant precisely because we still have access to the laws of the time, and how the laws were applied.

Quote:That creates what seems like a huge problem to Bible readers who want to be whole authentic, but what is actually just a consequence of:

2. Biblical autism. This is something that is pretty much a product of "sola scriptura" dogma of protestant Christians, and that is nowadays emphasized by Evangelicals. While at first glance, it would seem reasonable to refer to Bible as your only and ultimate source of religious authority (since Bible is, according to evangelicals, "infallible word of God"), there are numerous problems with that approach. The most obvious one is that it inevitably creates thousands of dogmas and thousands of approaches. Then, there is also problem of historicity. As we know, New Testament was written after death and resurrection of Christ. Hence, belief that it is infallible word of Christ is well, a belief.

This is another popular falsehood. The New Testament was written in the years following the death of Christ but Christians were declared heretics by their Jewish cousins and hunted down. The books were burned and so Christians had to pass the knowledge down by continuously re-writing the books over and over.

This changed, however, once the Romans wiped the Jews off the face of the planet and Christians were no longer persecuted by their Jewish cousins. That is why the oldest book of the NT, the Book of Matthew, is traced back to 70's AD - Jerusalem was razed in 73 AD. Once the majority of Jews went extinct, Christians were no longer persecuted by their cousins since the Jews had much bigger problems to worry about.

You can read more here.

Quote:Christ himself never mentioned Bible. He never instructed any of his followers to write one, refer to one, or anything like that because it simply did not exist. So when going deep into the Bible to find your religious beliefs you will be quite subjective in your approach - you will treat some things as strict commands, other as advices, other as teaching, other as cool stories, and everyone will have his own interpretation. It does satisfy the believer, i agree, but for society, it does no good. Fundamental Christians will say that society ultimately does not matter. It's salvation that matters according to them.

In reality, the Bible's message is quite simple. There isn't much room for interpretation but due to ignorance and translation errors there is a lot of disagreement. Regardless, once you actually do some research, as I have shown in the OP, you'll find errors even within the Vatican's website that goes against what Early Christians practiced.

Quote:Now let's compare for example, these verses. One translation clearly states fornication is serious sin

Corinthians 6:9, King James Version

Quote: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

Corinthians 6:9, New International Version

Quote:Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

Where "sexual immorality" is open to interpretation.

Most strict translations actually use world fornication (including the one in my native language). Fornication is without doubt, pre-marital sex.

Again, you're just posting here without reading anything I wrote above. Fornication does not mean pre-marital sex and is a translation error that started with Thomas Aquinas. I show the translation errors are so bad even the Vatican has managed to scrub the word fornication from their own online Catechism.

Quote:Every form of pre-marital sex with a virgin is a double headed coin therefore. She necessarily loses her virginity, and hence we have modern society don't we ?

But the crime here isn't premarital sex, the crime is the taking of a woman's virginity without the woman receiving any commitment in exchange.

It's two different things, no matter how subtle it may seem to you. Also taking a woman's virginity before marriage doesn't matter as long as the man agrees to stay with her anyways, but of course the only way to make sure the man stays with her is to force the marriage before sex.

Women who throw away their virginity because they have shitty families are fair game for other men. Thus sex without commitment is sinful for the woman but not the man. It's only sinful if the man engages in fraud, rape, etc.

Contributor at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2015 09:28 AM by Samseau.)
06-03-2015 09:27 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 4 users Like Samseau's post:
Bear Hands, BillyTalented, NY Digital, SvenTuga
Sgt Offline
Robin
*
Gold Member

Posts: 138
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation: 9
Post: #14
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
Thanks Samseau, great work and incredibly interesting!
06-03-2015 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 2 users Like Sgt's post:
BillyTalented, Samseau
SunW Offline
Woodpecker
**

Posts: 483
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 8
Post: #15
There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
Fascinating from the New Testament perspective, and I agree with your conclusions, as I've had my doubts after reading the Bible a few times how God sees sexual promiscuity.

For instance, in the Old Testament, several prominent people have sex with more than one woman - for instance, Jacob marries both Leah and Rachel and also has two mistresses - yet we don't see any condemnation of this by God. Even with Jacob being deceived into marrying Leah, God never seems angry that he marries Rachel (his second wife). Abraham also has a child with Hagar, which causes some tension with Sarah, but God doesn't seem to care.

Solomon sinned because he let his wives lead him away from God, not because he had multiple wives and concubines (1000 - the Wilt Chamberlain for his day). This one's especially interesting from a Red Pill perspective because we all know how important it is for men to lead and take initiative and that was exactly Solomon's undoing. David (the father of Solomon), when sleeping with Bathsheba, only seemed to anger God when he killed her husband Uriah - not committing adultery with a married woman (which is odd). He also had other wives outside of Bathsheba and Michal. Somewhat interesting that Bathsheba ended up being the mother of Solomon.

In the Old Testament especially, God seems to get involved when He gets pissed, so it's peculiar that these cases didn't anger God, or that the context which draws his anger isn't specifically sexual immorality. We don't see Him state to David, for instance, "Dude, why are you trying to get it on with more women than your wife, Michal - you know you're only supposed to be with one woman?"
06-03-2015 01:23 PM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 5 users Like SunW's post:
Dr. Howard, Frost, BillyTalented, chadverdad, Jean Valjean
Orion Offline
Kingfisher
***
Gold Member

Posts: 600
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 8
Post: #16
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
(06-03-2015 09:27 AM)Samseau Wrote:  False. We know what the words meant precisely because we still have access to the laws of the time, and how the laws were applied.

You have knowledge in what is the exact connotation of certain ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek words ? How come ?

Quote:That creates what seems like a huge problem to Bible readers who want to be whole authentic, but what is actually just a consequence of:

[quote]This is another popular falsehood. The New Testament was written in the years following the death of Christ but Christians were declared heretics by their Jewish cousins and hunted down. The books were burned and so Christians had to pass the knowledge down by continuously re-writing the books over and over.

You seem to steer me away from my original point. Bible was not declared authority by Jesus Himself. How do i know that ? Bible says so ! Taken into account that Bible was rewritten, re-translated and so forth, the point is reinforced even further.

Quote:In reality, the Bible's message is quite simple.

Yet we have thousands of Dogma's about it. I know for sure because i debated people who went at great lengths to defend their position. These questions are only shallow beginning, wait until you get to determinism-free will debates and so on.

Quote: There isn't much room for interpretation but due to ignorance and translation errors there is a lot of disagreement. Regardless, once you actually do some research, as I have shown in the OP, you'll find errors even within the Vatican's website that goes against what Early Christians practiced.

Vatican does not support pre-marital sex. Furthermore, in most of Bible's English speaking Catholics use, i still find word fornication. As for translation errors, really, how does one precisely find "error" ? What makes you believe that is how a certain word transitions into English ? Words are symbols for meanings. If you don't know meaning, you can never successfully translate to an acceptable level of correctness.

Quote:Again, you're just posting here without reading anything I wrote above. Fornication does not mean pre-marital sex and is a translation error that started with Thomas Aquinas. I show the translation errors are so bad even the Vatican has managed to scrub the word fornication from their own online Catechism.

How do you even manage to divorce pre-martial sex from Christian sexual indecency ? I'm not talking here about pump her and marry her after, I'm talking about pursuing casual sex. Casual sex = no virginity. Period.

Quote:But the crime here isn't premarital sex, the crime is the taking of a woman's virginity without the woman receiving any commitment in exchange.

Since when do red-pillers consider anything but marriage actually a commitment ? "Love" in relationships whose purpose is casual sex is something that blue pillers and women delude themselves with.

Quote:It's two different things, no matter how subtle it may seem to you. Also taking a woman's virginity before marriage doesn't matter as long as the man agrees to stay with her anyways, but of course the only way to make sure the man stays with her is to force the marriage before sex.

Ok, this is a point I'm coming from. But whether marriage went before sex or after is really only a technicality if they choose to commit anyway.

Quote:Women who throw away their virginity because they have shitty families are fair game for other men. Thus sex without commitment is sinful for the woman but not the man. It's only sinful if the man engages in fraud, rape, etc.

It's not about choice, it's about desire. If you are object of her desire, and she will have sex with you for that reason, when you engage with her, you didn't do it to pursue "soul" but "flesh". Hence, there can be no Christian sexual decency when you pursue raw sexual satisfaction.

"Eyes speak what heart tells them"
06-03-2015 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 3 users Like Orion's post:
Suits, Blobert, Handsome Creepy Eel
SydneyD Offline
Robin
*

Posts: 192
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 3
Post: #17
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
"as for translation errors, really, how does one precisely find "error" ? What makes you believe that is how a certain word transitions into English ? Words are symbols
for meanings. If you don't know meaning, you can never successfully translate to an acceptable level of correctness."

^ this is a pretty flimsy attempt at a counter-argument. Obviously one who is a master of English or any of the old biblical tongues can make an accurate translation and can determine the meaning of a certain word based on his mastery of the languages.

Whoredom and premarital sex are not the same things.....as Samseau has authoritatively illustrated.

Orion, how would you rationalise the biblical figures such as Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and numerous others who had sex outside the institution of marriage or had several wives but are still revered as being Holy and/or were close to God?

Don't you find it paradoxical that the founders of Israel had several concubines each but modern christianity dictates that you can only fuck one woman and that woman should be your wife?

This is something i think christians have largely ignored up to now and Samseau has done a good job in pointing this out.
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2015 03:04 PM by SydneyD.)
06-03-2015 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 3 users Like SydneyD's post:
Samseau, Bear Hands, billbudsocket
Orion Offline
Kingfisher
***
Gold Member

Posts: 600
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 8
Post: #18
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
(06-03-2015 02:56 PM)SydneyD Wrote:  this is a pretty flimsy attempt at a counter-argument. Obviously one who is a master of English or any of the old biblical tongues can make an accurate translation and can determine the meaning of a certain word based on his mastery of the languages.

Really ?

Are English "enlightenment" and Serbian "просвећење" the same words, with same connotation, strength, meaning and use, and if so, how do you know they are ?

Obviously, one will always be translated as the other, but that does not mean they are absolutely the same. It only means there is no better equivalent. It's basics of linguistics.

Also, whoredom and premarital casual sex have same purpose - fulfillment of sexual desire. If you claim pre-marital relationship, sex, than break-up can still contain "love" then i have a nice blue colored pill to sell to you.

"Eyes speak what heart tells them"
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2015 04:53 PM by Orion.)
06-03-2015 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 1 user Likes Orion's post:
Suits
scorpion Offline
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,605
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 260
Post: #19
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
My only concern with this analysis is how reliant it is on applying modern definitions to ancient words. I think Samseau has made an excellent case that the Greek porneia is more accurately translated as whoredom as opposed to fornication. However, the question is whether or not the first century A.D. definition of "whoredom" is the same as ours. It's entirely possible that any woman who had premarital sex in those days was considered a whore, regardless of whether she accepted any monetary compensation, and that any man who had relations with her was therefore in "whoredom". As an analogy, consider the word "gay". In the early 20th century, to call a man a gay fellow was to say he was cheerful and lighthearted. The modern reader, however, without understanding how the meaning of the word has shifted over time, might therefore erroneously assume the man was homosexual. In the same way, when we read Paul condemning "whoredom", we might think ourselves in the clear as long as we are not paying for sex, but it's very possible that Paul meant "whoredom" as a general label for all slutty, unmarried women engaging in sex, meaning that the men who slept with them were engaging in whoredom even if they didn't pay.

Samseau, you mentioned your research touched on how the definition of whoredom was applied in the law at the time. Could you go into more detail on that? Perhaps that would clarify the issue.

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” - Romans 8:18
06-03-2015 05:16 PM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 14 users Like scorpion's post:
Samseau, Benoit, Frost, TheWastelander, Master Of My Own Kingdom, Bear Hands, MiscBrah, Handsome Creepy Eel, samifon, whateverfuckit, Tytalus, Snowplow, Built to Fade, Cumlluminates
Samseau Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 14,541
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 293
Post: #20
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
(06-03-2015 05:16 PM)scorpion Wrote:  My only concern with this analysis is how reliant it is on applying modern definitions to ancient words. I think Samseau has made an excellent case that the Greek porneia is more accurately translated as whoredom as opposed to fornication.

Fornication ONLY means whoredom. Fornix = "under the arch" in latin, which were the main arches in Roman forums that whores gathered under at night. Men who went there were "fornicators." Pornia generally meant whore but could also include incest, rape, or adultery depending on its context.

If you look at the parts above where I went to the Vatican's website, you'll see I found some really strange and inconsistent stuff right on the catechism with their translations of this word. Etymological dictionaries show that the definition of fornication was changed in 1300 AD.

Quote:It's entirely possible that any woman who had premarital sex in those days was considered a whore, regardless of whether she accepted any monetary compensation, and that any man who had relations with her was therefore in "whoredom".

This is a good objection but we know men could still make use of women as concubines or female slaves. So the word whore does seem to have a specific meaning of being pay for play.

Orgies are also condemned in the Bible, but here we can see blatant debauchery, and not merely one man courting and bedding a non-virginal woman. Also orgies could include homosexuality or even beastiality.

Quote:Samseau, you mentioned your research touched on how the definition of whoredom was applied in the law at the time. Could you go into more detail on that? Perhaps that would clarify the issue.

It's being worked on. I've already shared this info with my priest and he said everything seemed compelling but he wanted to look into canon law of 9th century AD and earlier. He can read ancient Greek. Once he gets me some more info I will report back here.

Contributor at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2015 12:08 AM by Samseau.)
06-03-2015 11:59 PM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 2 users Like Samseau's post:
Frost, Snowplow
storm Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,307
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 21
Post: #21
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
This is certainly a convenient discovery.

Clearly it disagrees with Church canon. Luckily you are not in the same situation Luther was in.

However, it certainly agrees with how, historically, christian men have lived. I am looking forward to seeing this develop.

Permaritial sex falls into the "adultery" box, a first sign that something is not quite right.

If you're going to try, go all the way. There is no other feeling like that. You will be alone with the gods, and the nights will flame with fire. You will ride life straight to perfect laughter. It's the only good fight there is.

Disable "Click here to Continue"

My Testosterone Adventure: Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V

Quote:if it happened to you it’s your fault, I got no sympathy and I don’t believe your version of events.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2015 12:11 AM by storm.)
06-04-2015 12:06 AM
Find all posts by this user
Sooth Offline
Pelican
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,216
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 18
Post: #22
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
Wouldn't it be a sin before God to knowingly lead another to sin?
And for carnal satisfaction?

It would definitely be nice vindication, but I can't quite picture a high five from Jesus.
06-04-2015 02:22 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 1 user Likes Sooth's post:
da_zeb
Samseau Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 14,541
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 293
Post: #23
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
(06-04-2015 02:22 AM)Sooth Wrote:  Wouldn't it be a sin before God to knowingly lead another to sin?
And for carnal satisfaction?

It would definitely be nice vindication, but I can't quite picture a high five from Jesus.

So far it looks like sex is no more sinful than any other wordly pleasure. In excess it's just hedonism but having a good bang doesn't seem to be any more sinful than having an expensive, fancy, and big steak dinner.

Obviously if you get a woman pregnant then the man has other obligations; but the sex itself isn't the sin. Again there's more to Biblical sexual ethics other than "NEVER HAVE SEX UNLESS MARRIED," or "FREE LOVE BRAH," but this post was just to talk about premarital sex with non-virginal women who aren't whores since it is the most applicable to our modern world.

Contributor at Return of Kings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2015 06:56 AM by Samseau.)
06-04-2015 06:55 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 7 users Like Samseau's post:
MidWest, lskdfjldsf, Frost, Bear Hands, MiscBrah, Snowplow, Built to Fade
Frost Offline
Robin
*
Gold Member

Posts: 246
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 21
Post: #24
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
Great work Samseau, looking forward to more of this sort of research. It's been a while since I took a deep dive into this area, but my conclusion was the same as yours in your follow-up posts: fornication is a sin, like gluttony, akrasia, but it's certainly not adultery. In fact - contra modern Churchians - marrying a non-virgin is a far greater sin than whoremongering:

"But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery." - Matthew 5:32

And polygamy is clearly permitted. But, polygamy is also understood to be taking multiple virgin wives.

The Bible seems to divide women into three categories: 1) Virgins (potential wives), 2) Wives (seducing = adultery) and 3) Whores. There is no fourth category of liberated Sex and The City women, because the authors either couldn't conceive of the modern dating scene, or couldn't conceive of men unable to recognize them as whores.

So, I agree with scorpion and RawGod that there's no way around the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage to a virgin or widow. Would Jesus or anyone else have any trouble identifying nightclubs and mobile dating apps as 21st-century pornix? I'm pretty sure the Bible's authors would view modern women simply as whores with poor bargaining skills.

You make an excellent point that God views male promiscuity as much, much less serious than female promiscuity, and that modern Churches invert this. But you over-reach by saying that casual sex is 100% A-OK. Even in 2015, a good Christian man should be trying to find and marry a virgin wife. Is that impossible? Of course not. Is it difficult? No more so than being fed to lions or spending a few days on a cross.

But, you know the Bible a lot better than I do and you have access to a priest who speaks Koine, so I'm guessing you'll have a lot more to teach me than vice versa. Looking forward to your follow-up posts.

Cheers,
Frost

Blog: Thumotic
Red Pill links: The Red Pill Review
Follow me on Twitter
06-04-2015 08:31 AM
Find all posts by this user
[-] The following 5 users Like Frost's post:
samifon, Aurini, blacknwhitespade, Truth Tiger, Australia Sucks
Orion Offline
Kingfisher
***
Gold Member

Posts: 600
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 8
Post: #25
RE: There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men
(06-04-2015 06:55 AM)Samseau Wrote:  So far it looks like sex is no more sinful than any other wordly pleasure. In excess it's just hedonism but having a good bang doesn't seem to be any more sinful than having an expensive, fancy, and big steak dinner.

Obviously if you get a woman pregnant then the man has other obligations; but the sex itself isn't the sin. Again there's more to Biblical sexual ethics other than "NEVER HAVE SEX UNLESS MARRIED," or "FREE LOVE BRAH," but this post was just to talk about premarital sex with non-virginal women who aren't whores since it is the most applicable to our modern world.

You seem to be guessing too much here and jumping to conclusions based on arbitrarily drawn line.

How do you draw a line between slutiness, whoredom, sexual indecency, and so on ? I can already predict you will say "obviously, we know it from our own experiences in modern western dating world" but that exactly is the problem. Who gave western male a mandate to define sexual decency for Christians ? Based on mating patterns of broken western women ?

Let me be rough and clear here. Western women (85%) have nothing to do with God. Judgmental ? Yes. So i can't see how teachings of Christ and other messiahs and apostles can be applied in a way to approve rampant mating with Godless creatures. As preachers would say "It's not part of God's plan". Christian insistence on marriage has it's purpose. By committing to a Christian spouse, both of you can live separated from sinful world and produce Christian offspring, therefore, living in a sort of your own family "church". Bible would in no way advise a man to live separated from decent people and believers and go out there to freely fulfill his innermost desires.

"Eyes speak what heart tells them"
06-04-2015 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The Bible brings down Bolivian Bully Going strong 16 2,212 12-03-2019 06:17 PM
Last Post: Going strong
  Bible Study PainPositive 3 863 11-05-2019 06:11 PM
Last Post: CynicalContrarian
  Answering Common Questions Using the Bible PainPositive 16 1,512 06-15-2019 02:47 PM
Last Post: Spectrumwalker

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication