Is fornication sinful?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Certainly one-night stands for mere sexual satisfaction, as well as prostitution, either with a single client or as part of as porn production count as sin because of the serious potential consequences of such an act, even if a pregnancy is impossible for whatever reason.Other circumstance depend upon how narrow a definition of marriage one takes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, especially when we consider what tends to happen to the children produced in such unions.

I was a child born out of wedlock. My parents had been together for a couple years, but they didn't get married until I was almost 5. I like to think I turned out okay, and my parents are fortunately still together.

To answer the question here, no, I do not think so.

To me, that doesn't sound like fornication, just a couple who chose to wait a while before having the State recognize their union under the law.

How is this even close?

I resent people suggesting that my common law relationship is sinful in any way.

Considering how having the state recognize all marriages is a fairly recent phenomenon, anyone who suggests sex in a common law relationship is fornication, doesn't know what they are talking about.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

Well, I for one haven't, and in all honesty sex has become less and less appealing to me as time goes on, probably because I'm becoming less idle than I used to be and have better goals to think about.  So, whether I die a virgin or not is of zero concern to me.  I don't see how that discredits an honest, personal opinion, though.

As someone who was in your camp until recently, let me say that when someone special invades the camp of celibacy and drags you away into the camp of intimacy, I think you'll likely find that your only regret at that time will be that you weren't invaded sooner.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, how is it there are so many middle-aged virgins here? Politics should not be an atavistic religion.

Someone should tell Lindsey Graham that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

Your attempted person-shaming is entirely beyond the point. Do I need to have taken krokodil in order for my opinion of it to be worthwhile, or to be an alcoholic to have an opinion of alcoholism?

Those are hardly comparable.  Yet, while I don't think that was the point that Andrew was trying to make, I can easily see where it comes across as if he were saying that anyone who has had sex wouldn't consider fornication a sin.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe you are right, perhaps most people aren't religious fundamentalists, but most people are not going to go to heaven either (Matthew 7:13-14 - NIV: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) It does not matter if only a few people believe something as long as it is truthful. Anyhow, there are a great deal of conservative Christians in America, at the very least. The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest religious denomination in America with several million adherents, and it holds very many fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path.

I would never shape my worldview on the conventional wisdom of Americans, because I find it necessary to think for myself. I didn't become a conservative Christian overnight. It took quite some time for me to understand how Christ wanted me to view the world after I placed faith in Him as my Savior. I cannot in good conscience write off something because my culture doesn't like it.

As a Universalist I hold to a radically different interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14.  Jesus there is not proclaiming that only a few will be saved.  Rather he is proclaiming that only a few are able to find the way on their own without some form of guidance.  Jesus is certainly one guide to the narrow path, yet as he himself states in that passage, he is not the only potential guide, as those few others who find the narrow path on their own are also available as guides to the one true Way that Christ the Mediator shows us humans.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe you are right, perhaps most people aren't religious fundamentalists, but most people are not going to go to heaven either (Matthew 7:13-14 - NIV: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.) It does not matter if only a few people believe something as long as it is truthful. Anyhow, there are a great deal of conservative Christians in America, at the very least. The Southern Baptist Convention is the second largest religious denomination in America with several million adherents, and it holds very many fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Yes, there can be moderates in any religion, but moderate Muslims and Jews are going to go to hell just like conservative Muslims and Jews. Neither religion places any faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, so the adherents of both will not go to heaven if they continue on their path.

I would never shape my worldview on the conventional wisdom of Americans, because I find it necessary to think for myself. I didn't become a conservative Christian overnight. It took quite some time for me to understand how Christ wanted me to view the world after I placed faith in Him as my Savior. I cannot in good conscience write off something because my culture doesn't like it.

As a Universalist I hold to a radically different interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14.  Jesus there is not proclaiming that only a few will be saved.  Rather he is proclaiming that only a few are able to find the way on their own without some form of guidance.  Jesus is certainly one guide to the narrow path, yet as he himself states in that passage, he is not the only potential guide, as those few others who find the narrow path on their own are also available as guides to the one true Way that Christ the Mediator shows us humans.

Well, I do not fully understand Universalist views on some issues, I do believe that I may defend my own interpretation of Matthew 7:13-14 by pointing out Jesus' response to a question by Thomas in John 14:5-6 (NIV):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, after reading that, I believe it clears up Jesus' comments on the narrow path to heaven by saying in the Gospel of John that he is the only guide and the only way to heaven. Jesus didn't say that he is a way, rather, Jesus said he is the way. It is my belief that Jesus is saying few will accept Christ as Savior in Matthew 7:13-14.

I take it that Jesus here is speaking metaphorically, identifying himself with the Way that his life was a prime example of.  Hence I take it that he is emphasizing that his way is the only way.

Yet clearly, the ministry of Jesus was not about getting people to pay homage to him.  Consider the remainder of what he says in Matthew 7:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’ “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!”

One knows the value of a tree not by its name, but by its fruit.  Doing good works in the name of Jesus does not gain salvation.  The principle difference between our views seems to be that you consider the Persona of Jesus to be the principal thing we should revere whereas I believe the Way that Jesus taught and exemplified via his persona is the principal thing we should revere.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just to be clear, I do not believe in faith by works.

Nor did I think you did.  However, I tend to view the act of calling Jesus "Lord, Lord" as being an example of work rather than faith for many, but not all, who do so.  It gets tricky with works, for works proceed from true faith as is pointed out in James 1:25 "But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act—they will be blessed in their doing."  (And don't forget James 2:14-17!)  Yet while faith generates works, not all works are generated by faith. (See the aforementioned Matthew 7:21-23.)  Moreover as the tale of the widow's mite underscores, it is not in absolute terms, but relative terms that works can be viewed as evidence of faith.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest, how do you reconcile your view that it is not sinful with what is in the Bible?

Furthermore I feel abstinence shows a certain maturity- after all, isn't self-denial and restraint part of maturity? For the same reason one would not eat a cake if you were trying to lose weight, or even on any occasion.

Simple, I don't have to reconcile that because that's not my view.  My view is not that fornication is not sinful, but that relationships that under our legal system are today considered fornication would not be considered fornication but a form of marriage back when not all marriages were sanctified by either the state or a church.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Simfan, I think you're being led astray a bit by translation rot caused by the changing English language.  Back when the KJV was being written, "lust" did not refer to just erotic desires, or even principally to them but referred to any and all sort of desires. In the KJV, lust refers equally to casual sex and chocolate cake. (Save of course where the context limits it to a particular type of desire, but the quote you made from James refers to general desire.)  But as I see it, the sin isn't casual sex, it's sex of any type in a casual relationship.  A committed relationship in which two people join to form one flesh is to my eyes a marriage, and that can be true if the united pair engages in formal sex, casual sex, or no sex at all.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It depends on what caused the first relationship to collapse, Scott.  If it was because of lust for another, then yes.  If it collapsed for other reasons, then no.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It depends on what caused the first relationship to collapse, Scott.  If it was because of lust for another, then yes.  If it collapsed for other reasons, then no.

I'm not sure I follow. Given your common-law definition of marriage, leaving such a relationship seems like it would violate Jesus' teachings on divorce.

Keep in mind the time and place of his ministry.  It was a strongly androcentric society in which marriage was not a union of equals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The way I interpret those verses, if a man divorces a woman who still loves him, he is causing her to commit adultery not because of what she does with some other man, but because of the desire she still has for the man who divorced her.  The relationship may have ended for him, but it still exists for her, and if because of her economic circumstances, she is forced into seeking another marriage despite her continuing attachment to he who legally is her ex-husband, then he who marries such a divorced woman is committing adultery because in her heart, she is still married to her ex.