Sex! Woohoo!

[ScottBarger]

Here's another monkey wrench, looking at the biblical record it is actually EXPLICIT that sex before marriage wasn't always considered to be moral sin (on the same level as adultery or bestiality) In Exodus 22:16-17 the following is described as the penalty to a man who seduces a virgin.

"22:16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged and has sexual relations with her, he must surely endow her to be his wife. 22:17 If her father refuses to give her to him, he must pay money for the bride price of virgins."

The penalty to the man is to offer to marry the woman or to pay a kind of "depreciation" fine whichever the father of the woman preferred. The man is culpable for the damaging the value of the woman, but is not described as morally blemished. Of course this passage contradicts the corresponding passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to a degree, but I think it shows a somewhat evolving view of chastity.

It is also interesting to note that in both passages the transgression seems to be in defrauding the male spouse or devaluing the father's daughter, not necessarily in having sex.

[whoosanightowl]

Sue wrote:

I consider irresponsible sexual promiscuity something that is not morally good for at least a couple of reasons.
1)Babies are born to mothers who aren't even sure who the fathers are.
2) The rampant spread of STD's is a direct link to sleeping around.

I also believe it is morally wrong for most teens to engage in sexual activity because they are not usually responsible enough or emotionally mature to handle it. Especially if something unexpected happens as it so often does.

In both of these cases, sexual promiscuity and teen sex have many negative consequences on society at large, as well as the individuals involved. This is why I consider them to be morally wrong.

Tony wrote:

Why would you think that? Are you saying that a girl having sex with her boyfriend is sinning? What do you mean by morally wrong? How should it be enforced?

Tony,
No, I'm not saying a girl having sex with her boyfriend is "sinning" because that word implies a religious meaning (offending God) that I don't subscribe to. By morally wrong I mean it is not usually good either for themselves or for society because of the consequences if they are not mature or responsible enough to handle it. And most teens are not.
I don't think there's a way to enforce teens not to have sex, so probably education on using protection is the best alternative to hopefully prevent at least some of the negative consequences, both personally and socially.

You mentioned this in your reply to Scott:'

Why is trading money for sex wrong? Isn't that a victimless crime? And where in the bible is it clear that prostitution is defined as "Prostitution" and what does Prostitution mean? Is it ever spelled out? Maybe if I go for oral it is ok? It never says that oral from a prostitute is wrong!

I don't consider prostitution to necessarily be morally wrong, but I do think that adultery is wrong since that's being unfaithful and breaking a vow. So in that case I believe a married person hiring a prostitute is wrong, for oral or any other kind of sex, but not wrong for the prostitute who is simply providing a service.

I also don't consider sex between 2 men or 2 women morally wrong as long as it is consensual and they are responsible.

And having more than one partner (numerous wives or concubines) was morally acceptable in the OT, so that is one instance where Christianity's view of sexual morality has changed.

[JustJim]

I don't consider prostitution to necessarily be morally wrong, but I do think that adultery is wrong since that's being unfaithful and breaking a vow. So in that case I believe a married person hiring a prostitute is wrong, for oral or any other kind of sex, but not wrong for the prostitute who is simply providing a service.

So, breaking a vow is morally wrong, but sucking a stranger's penis for money is not? Curious set of moral values, that is....

If a prostitute sucks a married guy's penis for money, and promises not to tell his wife about it, but then does tell, the only moral "violation" that occurred was a broken promise not to tell?

Jim

[whoosanightowl]

I don't consider prostitution to necessarily be morally wrong, but I do think that adultery is wrong since that's being unfaithful and breaking a vow. So in that case I believe a married person hiring a prostitute is wrong, for oral or any other kind of sex, but not wrong for the prostitute who is simply providing a service.

So, breaking a vow is morally wrong, but sucking a stranger's penis for money is not? Curious set of moral values, that is....

If a prostitute sucks a married guy's penis for money, and promises not to tell his wife about it, but then does tell, the only moral "violation" that occurred was a broken promise not to tell?

Jim

Hi Jim!
Yes, as long as it's legal, which currently it isn't. Do I agree with it personally? No. But I don't feel it's my call to make for others, as long as it does not involve children.
Other cultures have successfully allowed it. And in some ways it would be better for society if it were on the up and up since government could require health screening laws for prostitutes, they'd have to pay taxes, and it would put pimps out of business. I know I might seem morally inconsistent here, but I think pimping girls for sex is wrong.
I really don't see much difference between prostitution and pornography or even strip club dancing.

[JustJim]

I know I might seem morally inconsistent here, but I think pimping girls for sex is wrong.
I really don't see much difference between prostitution and pornography or even strip club dancing.

Hi, Sue!

I think it's very "situational" and depends on the motivations of the people involved. For example, if a woman believes it's wrong to rent out her body for money, but feels she has no adequate alternatives to support herself, then I think she's violating a moral principle (of her own) - even though she may be able to justify it as the lesser among several "evils". And her "customers", I think, would be guilty of violating a moral principle involving the exploitation of other human beings. On the other hand, if she really, really just LOVES sex, and thinks there's nothing wrong with having sex with whomever one chooses whenever one wishes, and finds it hard to believe people would actually give her MONEY to have sexual relations with them, then I don't think she's violating any of her own moral principles, although she may possibly be violating those "exploitation" moral principles - depending on her "customer's" morals and motivations.

It's all too complicated sometimes, I think. Maybe it's just best to follow the old "Do unto others..." rule of thumb.

Jim

[tonyenglish7]

Here's another monkey wrench, looking at the biblical record it is actually EXPLICIT that sex before marriage wasn't always considered to be moral sin (on the same level as adultery or bestiality) In Exodus 22:16-17 the following is described as the penalty to a man who seduces a virgin.

"22:16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged and has sexual relations with her, he must surely endow her to be his wife. 22:17 If her father refuses to give her to him, he must pay money for the bride price of virgins."

The penalty to the man is to offer to marry the woman or to pay a kind of "depreciation" fine whichever the father of the woman preferred. The man is culpable for the damaging the value of the woman, but is not described as morally blemished. Of course this passage contradicts the corresponding passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to a degree, but I think it shows a somewhat evolving view of chastity.

It is also interesting to note that in both passages the transgression seems to be in defrauding the male spouse or devaluing the father's daughter, not necessarily in having sex.

Obviously sex is not bad, but it is for marriage. The verses do not contradict at all. They are specific laws in a theocracy to deal with rape. I am not clear on what point you are making? Is it that the view of fornication changes over time? The woman is a victim of rape or molestation in either case, it was a crime. If you are talking levels of sin, that is not an argument, fornication is not the same as murder. But that is not the discussion, it is whether or not fornication is a sin.

Any woman who is raped or molested is not morally blemished at all. What is cultural is that the woman is effectively of less value to that culture due to the rape and that is what is being compensated. It is not a question of moral blemish. Men preferred virgins and they were of more value in that culture. That is it! Please clarify your point here?

[ScottBarger]

Tony,

My point is that the exodus passage talks about the penalty for premarital sex between a man and a woman. The man is culpable for devaluing the woman. He is to pay a penalty and/or marry the woman...the choice belongs to the father of the woman. This seems to stand in contrast to other sexual sins described within the law where both parties are held morally culpable for their sin (adultery, for example).

I think this shows a certain evolution within the ancient Israelites as to their view of chastity.

All I am saying is the issue of defining "sexual immorality" is not quite black and white as it is presented in the Bible. That being said, there are plenty of biblical reasons to avoid premarital sex. It's abundantly clear that chastity was a prized virtue within the Bible, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as other moral teachings.

[whoosanightowl]

Jim wrote:

I think it's very "situational" and depends on the motivations of the people involved. For example, if a woman believes it's wrong to rent out her body for money, but feels she has no adequate alternatives to support herself, then I think she's violating a moral principle (of her own) - even though she may be able to justify it as the lesser among several "evils". And her "customers", I think, would be guilty of violating a moral principle involving the exploitation of other human beings. On the other hand, if she really, really just LOVES sex, and thinks there's nothing wrong with having sex with whomever one chooses whenever one wishes, and finds it hard to believe people would actually give her MONEY to have sexual relations with them, then I don't think she's violating any of her own moral principles, although she may possibly be violating those "exploitation" moral principles - depending on her "customer's" morals and motivations.

It's all too complicated sometimes, I think. Maybe it's just best to follow the old "Do unto others..." rule of thumb.

Jim,
I see your point in a way. If it goes against someone's own moral conscience, they definitely should not do it. This is the same reason I would defend doctors rights to refuse to perform abortions or assist in suicide when that becomes legal.
But since when is enjoying one's job a credential for doing it? Do podiatrists really LOVE working on strangers smelly, ugly feet? Do miners really LOVE laboring in a cold, dark, damp atmosphere all day long? Do you think either of them would find it hard to believe that they'll actually be compensated for their work?
Many people have jobs that they would prefer not to do for a paycheck. I think as long as people are not forced into their profession, it's okay. And prostitutes cannot be responsible for their customers moral choices.

[tonyenglish7]

Tony,

My point is that the exodus passage talks about the penalty for premarital sex between a man and a woman. The man is culpable for devaluing the woman. He is to pay a penalty and/or marry the woman...the choice belongs to the father of the woman. This seems to stand in contrast to other sexual sins described within the law where both parties are held morally culpable for their sin (adultery, for example).

I think this shows a certain evolution within the ancient Israelites as to their view of chastity.

All I am saying is the issue of defining "sexual immorality" is not quite black and white as it is presented in the Bible. That being said, there are plenty of biblical reasons to avoid premarital sex. It's abundantly clear that chastity was a prized virtue within the Bible, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as other moral teachings.

Yea, I understand now, sure, some sins are morally more reprehensible then others. It becomes even less clear when we as Christians lose our saltiness.

[NH Baritone]

Tony,

My point is that the exodus passage talks about the penalty for premarital sex between a man and a woman. The man is culpable for devaluing the woman. He is to pay a penalty and/or marry the woman...the choice belongs to the father of the woman. This seems to stand in contrast to other sexual sins described within the law where both parties are held morally culpable for their sin (adultery, for example).

I think this shows a certain evolution within the ancient Israelites as to their view of chastity.

All I am saying is the issue of defining "sexual immorality" is not quite black and white as it is presented in the Bible. That being said, there are plenty of biblical reasons to avoid premarital sex. It's abundantly clear that chastity was a prized virtue within the Bible, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as other moral teachings.

Yea, I understand now, sure, some sins are morally more reprehensible then others. It becomes even less clear when we as Christians lose our saltiness.

Some dishes are too salty to swallow.

[tonyenglish7]

Tony,

My point is that the exodus passage talks about the penalty for premarital sex between a man and a woman. The man is culpable for devaluing the woman. He is to pay a penalty and/or marry the woman...the choice belongs to the father of the woman. This seems to stand in contrast to other sexual sins described within the law where both parties are held morally culpable for their sin (adultery, for example).

I think this shows a certain evolution within the ancient Israelites as to their view of chastity.

All I am saying is the issue of defining "sexual immorality" is not quite black and white as it is presented in the Bible. That being said, there are plenty of biblical reasons to avoid premarital sex. It's abundantly clear that chastity was a prized virtue within the Bible, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as other moral teachings.

Yea, I understand now, sure, some sins are morally more reprehensible then others. It becomes even less clear when we as Christians lose our saltiness.

nice...
Some dishes are too salty to swallow.

[ScottBarger]

Yea, I understand now, sure, some sins are morally more reprehensible then others. It becomes even less clear when we as Christians lose our saltiness.

So what are you saying here, Tony?

[TheFonz]

Yea, I understand now, sure, some sins are morally more reprehensible then others. It becomes even less clear when we as Christians lose our saltiness.

Hi Tony,
I have not commented on your posts before, but I have been watching your conversaion on this thread, particularly with Scott. I understand your concerns with Scott's comments, and I thought he explained himself well. As a relatively conservative evangelical Christian, I have no issue with Scott's comments.
I am not so sure about your comment here. In previous posts, it seemed as though the context of culture point rubbed you the wrong way. However, your comment about Christians "losing" saltiness seems to refer to the relevance of Christians in their culture.
Can you explain what you meant or give an example?

[ScottBarger]

The Fonz

[tonyenglish7]

Yea, I understand now, sure, some sins are morally more reprehensible then others. It becomes even less clear when we as Christians lose our saltiness.

So what are you saying here, Tony?

It seems to me you are in the unenviable position to defend fornication as either not a sin or not as bad as other sins. I am conceding it is not as bad as worse sins.

Regarding the Salt referrence....
Matthew 5:13  ¶“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14  ¶“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.
15  Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.
16  In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
17  ¶“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I think that explains my position.