Bible Passages on Fornication

[CrossoverManiac]

Whatever happened to The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Scared Traditions?!?!?!?!

So Tradition and the Catechism trumpts the Bible? Maybe you want me to throw my Bible away since, according to you, it’s meaningless in the face of the Catechism and Tradition. Excuse me for thinking that God’s Word trumpts Tradition if they contradict.

Just because someone in the Bible had premarital sex (fornication) doesn’t mean it was right.

Try ‘just because someone in the Bible had premarital sex and wasn’t condemned for it’ to be accurate.

If you want to interpret the Scriptures literally and put your own spin on God’s teaching, then join a Protestant church.

So say LeahInancsi, self-appointed head of the Catholic Answers Forum Inquisition.

 

[LeahInancsi]

CrossoverManiac:

So Tradition and the Catechism trumpts the Bible? Maybe you want me to throw my Bible away since, according to you, it’s meaningless in the face of the Catechism and Tradition. Excuse me for thinking that God’s Word trumpts Tradition if they contradict.

You need to take both into consideration. One is not complete without the other.
CorssoverManiac:

So say LeahInancsi, self-appointed head of the Catholic Answers Forum Inquisition.

Yes, if the shoes fits.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

LeahInancsi:

You need to take both into consideration. One is not complete without the other.

No, be honest. Tradition>>>>>>>>Bible right?

Yes, if the shoes fits.

That isn’t something you ought of be proud of.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Whatever happened to The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Scared Traditions?!?!?!?!

Just because someone in the Bible had premarital sex (fornication) doesn’t mean it was right.

If you want to interpret the Scriptures literally and put your own spin on God’s teaching, then join a Protestant church.

My friend IS a Protestant.

 

[Lazerlike42]

CrossoverManiac:

Well, you sorta ticked me off by saying those were my ‘assumptions’. It was petty of me to get mad at a statement that wasn’t even intended as an insult. So, I apologize.

I hope more people dissect the book.

I’ll read it if I get the time, but, to be honost, I’m afraid the article will be bias. And Song have had a history of people downplaying its erotic meaning and content.

Are you saying that God gives a free pass on premarital sex depending on the culture? If so, then your argument amounts to shooting yourself in the foot. In this culture, premarital sex is commonplace.

One backed up by facts.

It’s a very bad hypothesis. The girl’s brothers was talking about whether or not she kept her virginity. Virginity is not an issue post-marriage.

The part about the girl’s brothers is making the point of how guarded virginity is. I tried to use Song of Songs to convince my girlfriend sex was ok a while ago but I even knew at the time I was misinterpreting it,

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Lazerlike42:

The part about the girl’s brothers is making the point of how guarded virginity is.

And that ‘guarded’ virginity, which is mentioned in chapter 8 is lost long before then.

I tried to use Song of Songs to convince my girlfriend sex was ok a while ago but I even knew at the time I was misinterpreting it,

Don’t accuse me of purposely misinterpreting Scripture. That may have been your intentions, but from what I read it isn’t a misinterpretation.

 

[Lazerlike42]

CrossoverManiac:

And that ‘guarded’ virginity, which is mentioned in chapter 8 is lost long before then.

Don’t accuse me of purposely misinterpreting Scripture. That may have been your intentions, but from what I read it isn’t a misinterpretation.

Forgive me, I did not intend to accuse you of purposefully misinterpreting it. I was only trying to make the point that I had done so, and that I knew what the correct interpretation is.

THat all being said, I do think that you have it wrong. Chapter 8 verses 8:9 clearly indicate that the woman was chaste until she married in chapter 4. Where do you see her having relations before that?

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Lazerlike42:

Forgive me, I did not intend to accuse you of purposefully misinterpreting it. I was only trying to make the point that I had done so, and that I knew what the correct interpretation is.

So I’m now going to have to trust your word when you admitted to purposely misinterpreting Scripture in the past?

THat all being said, I do think that you have it wrong. Chapter 8 verses 8:9 clearly indicate that the woman was chaste until she married in chapter 4. Where do you see her having relations before that?

And your proof that the scene in chapter 8 took place before chapter 4 is?

Edit: in fact, what’s your proof chapter 8 took place before any of the other chapters since they’re out in the fields having sex in

Songs 1:16

“16
Ah, you are beautiful, my lover-
yes, you are lovely.
Our couch, too, is verdant;”

 

[melbourne_guy]

Is the church against fornification? i thought it was. The problem here is that i dont think that anybody from my generation takes it seriously. My parents and all of my friends parents certainly dont care if we have sex and they promote the usage of condoms. I would like to hear from some people from my age group (18-25)
to see if anyone else grew up the same way. p.s i went to a catholic school and i mostly only associate with catholics.

 

[Lazerlike42]

CrossoverManiac:

So I’m now going to have to trust your word when you admitted to purposely misinterpreting Scripture in the past?

Yes, because you are a Catholic who is supposed to forgive and who is not supposed to judge the inner person but only the outer actions. Because I did that when I was slave to sin but I came to Christ and his Church. I used to masturbate two or three times a day, but I haven’t done it once in nearly a year. As a male, and a person whom had this proble, I can tell you that that is more than enough evidence that Christ worked and is working in me. Don’t be so cynical, and don’t be so critical. Trust and love.

And your proof that the scene in chapter 8 took place before chapter 4 is?

Edit: in fact, what’s your proof chapter 8 took place before any of the other chapters since they’re out in the fields having sex in

Songs 1:16

“16
Ah, you are beautiful, my lover-
yes, you are lovely.
Our couch, too, is verdant;”

The entire book, really. You ought to read a Bible commentary on the book. I’ll put together a short one for you to give my proof. It will be up later.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Lazerlike42:

Yes, because you are a Catholic who is supposed to forgive and who is not supposed to judge the inner person but only the outer actions.

Because I did that when I was slave to sin but I came to Christ and his Church. I used to masturbate two or three times a day, but I haven’t done it once in nearly a year. As a male, and a person whom had this proble, I can tell you that that is more than enough evidence that Christ worked and is working in me.

I’ll forgive you, and you were honest about being deceitful in the past. I’m glad Christ is changing you. Though, you should be willing to consider the possibility and you are wrong and I was wrong (I used of thought the same way you did). I even turned my nose up at the prospect that erotic literature was in the Bible (when I first heard about Songs).

Don’t be so cynical, and don’t be so critical. Trust and love.

Mind telling that to LeahInancsi, who wants to kick me out of the Catholic Church.

The entire book, really. You ought to read a Bible commentary on the book. I’ll put together a short one for you to give my proof. It will be up later.

So long as it’s a non-bias analysis of the text, I’m game.

 

[Lazerlike42]

It would actually take quite a while to do an entire thing like that, so I’ll just address a few points and we’ll go from there.

For one, I have read plenty of commentaries on this, and not one of them even suggests the interpretation you do. What’s more, many of these commentaries have a lot of apologetic material in them, and none address this point, so that strongly suggests that nobody else has suggessted your interpretation for the commentators to counter. I think you are standing one and alone here. Honestly, there are no interpretations even close. In fact, every single commentary I have seen speaks about how this book teaches how beautiful it is to wait until marriage and how it shows what great benefit there is in it, and that the characters are great examples of it.

There are several places where the book pretty clearly shows that chastity is practiced here. For instance, in chapter 3 verse 1 the woman speaks of how she wanted him in her bed at night, but she did not have him. In chapter 4 verses 12 to 16, the shepard speaks of all of the fruits that her garden holds, but begins by saying that she is an “enclosed” garden, and a “sealed” fountain. It is not until verse 16b that she finally invites him into her garden.

There are actually many interpretations of this, but again, nobody has come up with anything close to what you are suggesting.

More on this as I have time.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Lazerlike42:

It would actually take quite a while to do an entire thing like that, so I’ll just address a few points and we’ll go from there.

For one, I have read plenty of commentaries on this, and not one of them even suggests the interpretation you do.

[ur=[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority]Appeal[/URL] to the majority.

What’s more, many of these commentaries have a lot of apologetic material in them, and none address this point, so that strongly suggests that nobody else has suggessted your interpretation for the commentators to counter.

Actually, I wasn’t the one to come up with this interpretation. I avoided linking this site because of the partial nudity in it, but here it is.

I think you are standing one and alone here.

Majority make right. Didn’t the same majority condone slavery and racism in the 1800’s?

Honestly, there are no interpretations even close. In fact, every single commentary I have seen speaks about how this book teaches how beautiful it is to wait until marriage and how it shows what great benefit there is in it, and that the characters are great examples of it.

As I stated before, the Songs have had a history of being alegorized to downplay its erotic elements. The Jews said it was symbolism of God’s love for Israel. Christian theologians said it was an alegory of Christ’s love for the Church. And now that more people are reading it, it’s now being interpretted as marital romance dispite there being little sign of anyone being married.

There are several places where the book pretty clearly shows that chastity is practiced here. For instance, in chapter 3 verse 1 the woman speaks of how she wanted him in her bed at night, but she did not have him.

But not from a lack of trying.

Songs 3: 1-4

" 1
On my bed at night I sought him
whom my heart loves-
I sought him but I did not find him.
2
I will rise then and go about the city;
in the streets and crossings I will seek
Him whom my heart loves.
I sought him but I did not find him.
3
The watchmen came upon me
as they made their rounds of the city:
Have you seen him whom my heart loves?
4
I had hardly left them
when I found him whom my heart loves.
I took hold of him and would not let him go
till I should bring him to the home of my mother,
to the room of my parent."

This is hardly the actions of a person trying to remain chaste until their wedding night.

In chapter 4 verses 12 to 16, the shepard speaks of all of the fruits that her garden holds, but begins by saying that she is an “enclosed” garden, and a “sealed” fountain. It is not until verse 16b that she finally invites him into her garden.

The chastity being that the girl is being faithful to her lover and not being with other suitors. And you haven’t shown that chapter 8 occurred before chapter 4. Otherwise, you can’t prove that they were married in chapter 4.

 

[Coder]

What’s the difference between a prostitute and a woman who has sexual relations outside of marriage? Neither of them has the sacramental commitment.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Coder:

What’s the difference between a prostitute and a woman who has sexual relations outside of marriage? Neither of them has the sacramental commitment.

I don’t believe I’m hearing this. So all women who had sex outside of marriage are whores, huh? That’s utter and complete rubbish and I hope it was said for shock value only. Even if premarital sex was a sin, that doesn’t equate for prostitution.

 

[Coder]

CrossoverManiac:

So all women who had sex outside of marriage are whores, huh? …shock value

I didn’t use that word, you introduced it and it is the stronger more “shocking” term.

CrossoverManiac:

Even if premarital sex was a sin, that doesn’t equate for prostitution.

In one case there is pay and not in the other. Either way, it is sexual relations outside of marriage - so is there really that much difference? There is no permanent commitment - at least not a binding public one. In fact prostitutes sometimes do it out if enslavement or desperation which could even make them less culpable than women who freely choose to have sexual relations outside of the sacramental commitment. Men wo do the same are just as guilty so don’t think I’m excluding them.

Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.”
Matthew 21:31

Don’t you think that had “shock value” to the hearers who may have looked down on prostitues and did not consider themselves in the same league?

We are all weak sinners, the only answer is to ask God’s mercy and always humbly admit our weakness. I am a weak sinner in need of God’s mercy, no better than anyone. I’m merely trying to show people how serious sexual relations outside of marriage is and that people who freely sin in this way yet would look down on prostitutes, may want to think again and repent.

Also, we’ve made such a joke out of marriage today that even being married doesn’t always mean a permanent commitment. Look at these Hollywod marriages - it makes a mockery of marriage.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I am not suggesting that the majority makes right. What I am suggesting is that if this book does teach fornication, there is a major contradiction in the Bible, one which would have been exploited long ago by the myriads of anti-Christian and anti-religious folks out there, and one which would be used by many of the folks that have sprung up the past few decades that try to use the Bible to justify all sorts of sexual acts. The fact that nobody, even those who dedicate their lives to debunking Christianity, have ever brought this up is very telling.

As far as the site, I am engaged in quite a bit of research over it now. Thus far, I have two things to say about it. Firstly, the authors of that site make just as many assumptions and arbitrary interpretations as they accuse the allegorical of making. The entire theory is based on many assumptions that are made throughout. For example, the idea that the king does not refer to king Solomon, is based on no objective facts other than the author’s a priori interpretation. The only reason the author can make this assumption is that it fits into the predetermined interpretation. This commentary is just as lacking in any supporting evidence and is based only on the interpretation, and indeed is necessary to assume for the interpretation to stand up:

1:7
Notice his sudden apparent demotion from king to shepherd. Here, for a moment, her daydream flickers, and we get a glimpse of their true circumstances: a shepherd and a shepherdess making secret plans for their next tryst in the “king’s chamber.”

In addition to these problems is the fact that the authors make a butchering of Hebrew. In some cases they are correct, such as when they refer to the mare. However, several of their other linguistic statements are simply either inaccurate or deceptively referred to as certain when in fact there exists great uncertainty in the scholarly community concerning them. For instance, the statement

“For centuries, exegetes have considered their relationship chaste, ignoring the plain sense of the Hebrew. The word dodim, which occurs six times in the Song, including the opening verse- “Your dodim are better than wine” -is almost always translated as “love”, though it refers specifically to sexual love.”

“In resolving interpretive cruxes, our practice has been to look first to the internal evidence of the Song itself… As a second step, we turned to other books of the Bible for help. A crucial instance is the word dodim, a comprehensive term for lovemaking, including kisses and caresses as well as intercourse. This meaning could not be determined on the basis of the Song alone. However, the word occurs three other times in the Bible, in each case referring to sexual love…”

“Given these uses of dodim, we can be quite certain that the word also refers to sexual love in the Song-something a reader would not know from most translations, which render it simply as 'love.” (1)

is very misleading. The precise meaning of the Hebrew term mentioned is one about which there has been a bit of uncertainty. What’s more, the appeal to other uses in the Bible is very misleading, because the other uses do not necessarily come from the same time frame as Song of Songs. Words change meaning, often drastically. To say that we know the word refers to sexual love just because it is used elsewhere in the Bible in that way would be the same as if a person 2000 years from now concluded that the use of the word “gay” in a 2003 document must refer to happiness because he was able to see the term used that way in several older documents. You simply cannot make those jumps across different books unless a consistent usage can be shown over the course of many time periods, and even then the inference is not certain.

I will keep looking into this, but the site really is not as wonderful as it seems. It seems to be gold, but it is merely gold-plated lead.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Coder:

I didn’t use that word, you introduced it and it is the stronger more “shocking” term.

“Oh I didn’t say they were whores, I just inferred they were.”

In one case there is pay and not in the other. Either way, it is sexual relations outside of marriage - so is there really that much difference?

Prostitution was a stoning offense, in the Levitical law. Premarital sex is punishable by requiring the offending male to pay a fine to the girl’s father if he doesn’t marry her and that’s only because of the lost of her virginity. That an indication that premarital sex isn’t on the same level as adultery.

There is no permanent commitment - at least not a binding public one.

Oh how well you chose your word to compared two people who are in a monogamous relationships who aren’t married along with prostitutes.

In fact prostitutes sometimes do it out if enslavement or desperation which could even make them less culpable than women who freely choose to have sexual relations outside of the sacramental commitment.

So now premarital sex is worse than prostitution! Even worse, you justify your bogus comparisons under the guises of false humility.

Men wo do the same are just as guilty so don’t think I’m excluding them.

I didn’t say you were so don’t put words in my mouth.

Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.”
Matthew 21:31

And who did he say it too? The chaste religious leaders of his time.

Don’t you think that had “shock value” to the hearers who may have looked down on prostitues and did not consider themselves in the same league?

Oh you are a piece of work. I can tell a hidden insult when I hear one.

We are all weak sinners, the only answer is to ask God’s mercy and always humbly admit our weakness. I am a weak sinner in need of God’s mercy, no better than anyone. I’m merely trying to show people how serious sexual relations outside of marriage is and that people who freely sin in this way yet would look down on prostitutes, may want to think again and repent.

Oh get off your high horse and quit being a self-righteous Pharisee.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Lazerlike42:

I am not suggesting that the majority makes right. What I am suggesting is that if this book does teach fornication, there is a major contradiction in the Bible, one which would have been exploited long ago by the myriads of anti-Christian and anti-religious folks out there

You mean this criticism?

and one which would be used by many of the folks that have sprung up the past few decades that try to use the Bible to justify all sorts of sexual acts.

It wouldn’t do much in the way of justifying all sort of sex acts. Songs can’t justify adultery, incest, prostitution, or most anything else not allowed in the Bible.

The fact that nobody, even those who dedicate their lives to debunking Christianity, have ever brought this up is very telling.

answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/Songs/commentary.html

As far as the site, I am engaged in quite a bit of research over it now. Thus far, I have two things to say about it. Firstly, the authors of that site make just as many assumptions and arbitrary interpretations as they accuse the allegorical of making. The entire theory is based on many assumptions that are made throughout. For example, the idea that the king does not refer to king Solomon, is based on no objective facts other than the author’s a priori interpretation. The only reason the author can make this assumption is that it fits into the predetermined interpretation. This commentary is just as lacking in any supporting evidence and is based only on the interpretation, and indeed is necessary to assume for the interpretation to stand up:

I don’t see it as far-fetched, unless you think King Solomon works as a shephard in his free time. The young man also refers to the girl as ‘her sister’. We know that this is figurative since the girl talks about wishing that her lover was also her brother so they wouldn’t have to hide their relationship.

In addition to these problems is the fact that the authors make a butchering of Hebrew. In some cases they are correct, such as when they refer to the mare. However, several of their other linguistic statements are simply either inaccurate or deceptively referred to as certain when in fact there exists great uncertainty in the scholarly community concerning them. For instance, the statement

Could you go into detail?

is very misleading. The precise meaning of the Hebrew term mentioned is one about which there has been a bit of uncertainty. What’s more, the appeal to other uses in the Bible is very misleading, because the other uses do not necessarily come from the same time frame as Song of Songs. Words change meaning, often drastically. To say that we know the word refers to sexual love just because it is used elsewhere in the Bible in that way would be the same as if a person 2000 years from now concluded that the use of the word “gay” in a 2003 document must refer to happiness because he was able to see the term used that way in several older documents. You simply cannot make those jumps across different books unless a consistent usage can be shown over the course of many time periods, and even then the inference is not certain.

And you have proof the meaning of the word dodim changed over time or that the author wasn’t using an accurate translation.

I will keep looking into this, but the site really is not as wonderful as it seems. It seems to be gold, but it is merely gold-plated lead.

You might want to back up that claim before making such a gradiose analogy.

Edit: And you still haven’t shown evidence that chapter 8 takes place before chapter 4.

 

[Coder]

“Oh I didn’t say they were …, I just inferred they were.”

It’s still the stronger term and I didn’t use it.

CrossoverManiac:

Prostitution was a stoning offense, in the Levitical law. Premarital sex is punishable by requiring the offending male to pay a fine to the girl’s father if he doesn’t marry her and that’s only because of the lost of her virginity. That an indication that premarital sex isn’t on the same level as adultery.

We’re not under those laws. Jesus said they anyone who even looks at a woman and desires to posess her have already commited adultery in their hearts. If you want to compare, compare this to people attitudes to sex and marriage toady.

CrossoverManiac:

Oh how well you chose your word to compared two people who are in a monogamous relationships who aren’t married along with prostitutes.

Monogamous until when? There is no commitment.

CrossoverManiac:

So now premarital sex is worse than prostitution!

Are you saying this is this not possible in some cases? I have given reasons why a prostitute’s culpability could be less. Yet you did not address this.

CrossoverManiac:

Even worse, you justify your bogus comparisons under the guises of false humility.

where is the false humility? I’m not judging personal motives as you are doing. I am dealing with reason. Did I try to judge the motives of people who have relations outside of marriage? No.

CrossoverManiac:

I didn’t say you were so don’t put words in my mouth.

Nor did I say that you said or implied that I was excluding men. I am pointing out that men are also responsible to be moral.

CrossoverManiac:

And who did he say it too? The chaste religious leaders of his time.

We don’t know how chaste they were and that may not be the relevant point. Perhaps the point is that they judged people ot thought themselves holier. Should people invloved in relations outside of marriage judge or consider themselves holier than prostitutes? Do I consider myself better than people involved in relations outside of marriage? No but we are all called to live according the teaching of Jesus for our own good.

CrossoverManiac:

Oh you are a piece of work.

That’s not very polite. Please stay with reason and rational discussion.

CrossoverManiac:

I can tell a hidden insult when I hear one.

Where is the hidden insult? When I first heard prostitution and sex oputside of marriage compared. I said wow! I never thought of it that way! I was not offended. I welcome it an aid to help us take chastity seriously.

CrossoverManiac:

Oh get off your high horse and quit being a self-righteous Pharisee.

Where have I been impolite or called people names. I have spoken only in general about those involved in relations outside of marriage.

You still have not provided any rational discussion why sexual relations outside of marriage is better than prostitution? The monogamous aspect does not matter because those in such relationships make no commitment to be monogamous. If they promised each other to be monogamous this is not a commitment to the community and to God.

From a social point of view, perhaps so-called monogamous relationships are slightly less disorderly but I don’t think this should allow us to lessen the seriousness of relations ourtside of marriage.