[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Let's look at it. Here's a rundown of the verses:

Exodus 22:16-17 — Actually condones premarital sex. Oops!

I think it's a stretch to claim that a verse advising the sexual partners to marry or man to pay "bride-price" in the event is condoning the act. It is certainly governing the practice in an attempt to regulate and in fact discourage the act. Not to condone it.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 — Only applies to women, only applies to a husband's dissatisfaction with his wife, and is part of the Law of Moses anyway (it condemns menstruation about as strongly).

The main premise regardless, is virginity. Yes, in this case it is focused on the woman, but I think it stresses the importance of celibacy. Are you saying the governance is archaic? Of course it is and while I certainly can't support the practice of stoning a woman to death over such an ordeal, suffice it to say the Bible is pretty clearly indicating the importance of celibacy "while in her father's house". i.e. unmarried.

Proverbs 5:15-21 — They pulled this one out of their ass.

While I agree that this one seems more in regard to taking "another man's wife", I wouldn't go so far as to say it has been pulled from their ass. It is advocating the ideal. The ideal is "May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth."

1 Corinthians 6:16-18 — Deals with prostitution, or more broadly (depending on how you read it), sexual immorality. It's only talking about premarital sex if we assume that's immoral.

Given the number of instances and references to "Bride of Christ" and "two will become one in flesh" as we are one in spirit with God, and knowing that they are referring to the Covenant between man and wife as indicative of God's Covenant with man throughout much of the NT, they are indeed referring to premarital sex. They are using the term prostitute because it is clear what prostitution is. I suppose they could've said, "otherwise decent woman who engaged in sex for pleasure or personal gain", but it's generally clear to most.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 — Actually seems to be a slap at marriage as much as anything. It's not condemning premarital sex; just lust in general.

I suppose one could start by putting the above in context. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The above starts off by stating "the sexually immoral" and does not continue to define "sexually immoral", but clearly separates it as one its own from prostitution and adultery. "neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male and female prostitutes, etc...". If I say neither the apple nor the orange, I'm not just saying "not the apple". I'm saying neither the apple nor the orange. Again, it's pretty clear to most. You can say; "Ahh, that's just Paul who is anti-sex" and I couldn't disagree with this. Unfortunately, he is an author in the NT. Take it or leave it.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 — Ditto. Paul felt that only celibacy was pure (as in total celibacy), but understood that most people couldn't handle it, and thus gave them permission to live a normal family life. Paul isn't saying "Sex is only OK within marriage," he's saying "Sex is bad, but it's even more detrimental to be consumed with lust, so do what you have to do, just try to keep control."

He's pretty clearly saying, if you can't help, but to have sex... well then, get married. Again, you can say "Paul is just being Paul", but he is found in the NT. Take it or leave it. It's pretty clear that he advocates oneness and complete dedication to God alone, but understands human nature and suggests if you do need sex, get married. Again, this is about as clear as it gets.

Ephesians 5:31 — Does not address premarital sex at all.

It may not be addressing premarital sex in this regard, but certainly highlights the ideal. "man leaving his father and mother and uniting with his wife, and the two will become one flesh." It affirms the ideal. The ideal is not sexual immorality, but unity in marriage.

1 Thessalonians 4:2-8 — Relates to sex cults, not premarital sexual relationships like we have nowadays. I don't think it's splitting hairs to say these are very different things.

I think you're splitting hairs to the nth degree. It is not related to sex cults, it is comparing sexual immorality with sex cults; "the heathens".

Hebrews 13:4 — This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I said many arguments are tautological. Unless we assume premarital sex is a sin, this verse doesn't condemn it.

"sexual immorality" has already been defined and affirmed in other portions of the Bible as one its own from adultery and prostitution. What else is it? I mean, I think we're really stretching out here. You certainly aren't required to believe it or adhere to it, but I don't think the notion of premarital sex as affirmed in numerous instances throughout the NT alone as "sexual immorality" is ambiguous or non-existent.

1 Timothy 5:2 — Another call for celibacy. Note that it is not specifically talking about premarital sex. Paul just didn't like sex in general.

Seems to me what he's saying then in lieu of all else he's said is; "if you cannot treat the young woman as your sister, in purity; then marry her."

2 Corinthians 11:2 — Unless Christian men really believe they have to be celibate their whole lives so they can go gay for Jesus in the afterlife, I think we can agree this verse is symbolic.

This is an example of the Covenant between God and man being illustrated as the Covenant between man and woman. This happens in several instances throughout the NT. Again, it is advocating the "ideal".

That said; much of the Bible is used to simply put us in our places as sinful people. We often do not follow the "ideals" advocated in Scripture and as such require atonement. If "sin" is not defined, we are not sinners. If we're not in sin, we are not in need of grace. If we don't need grace, we don't need God. The Bible suggests that we are all in sin. The Bible also suggests that we are all likewise, in need of God's grace.

Again, take it or leave it. It's pretty clear to me. It's also clear to me that I'm in need of grace, but then I'm a Christian and this is Christian doctrine.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I suppose one could start by putting the above in context. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The above starts off by stating "the sexually immoral" and does not continue to define "sexually immoral", but clearly separates it as one its own from prostitution and adultery. "neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male and female prostitutes, etc...". If I say neither the apple nor the orange, I'm not just saying "not the apple". I'm saying neither the apple nor the orange. Again, it's pretty clear to most. You can say; "Ahh, that's just Paul who is anti-sex" and I couldn't disagree with this. Unfortunately, he is an author in the NT. Take it or leave it.

*cough*

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,

10) nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.

It doesn't state "the sexually immoral" at all.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, take it or leave it. It's pretty clear to me. It's also clear to me that I'm in need of grace, but then I'm a Christian and this is Christian doctrine.

Sorry ebuddy, but your perceptions are more to do with your being an American Christian rather than just a Christian. In no way knocking you or your country, but it's clear to me (as an outsider) that a lot of current American Christian thinking is heavily culturally influenced (heck, your country even started that way: the Mayflower was, after all, chock full of Puritans). You've got folks like Dr. J. Vernon McGee putting their own extreme (and incorrect) interpretations into the mix all the time. Joseph Smith went one better, but it's the same sort of thing.

I seriously urge any Christian looking for the truth of things to read Young's Literal or the original lingo. Check the KJV for ease, by all means, but go back to YLT or original for the detail. Seriously.

[Dakar²]

Hey Doofy, I want to thank you for taking the time to back up your claims.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

According to 'my own code,' along with the majority of authentic Bible-believing Christ followers (at least in America), homosexuality itself it not a sin, but homosexual sex is, and any type of extra-sex is a sin.
But PLEASE don't gay-ify this thread. It was doing fine without it.

You bring up Salty's homosexuality and you're telling me not to gay-ify the thread by addressing it? Doesn't matter, its already turned in Bible study.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

On a completely non-offensive note, does it ever bother you then that you won't have a sweet clue what you're doing, and she might not have the best sex of her life?

I mean, we all had to learn somewhere, and I probably learned rather late by today's standards (18). But I made up for it in bundles since then, and it's certainly true – you really don't know **** when you start having sex. Hell, fooling around with lots of women gives you new tricks and tips and insight into what works and what doesn't and when and where and why and all kinds of crazy stuff.

And, just as an example (although, again, I respect your decision and I'm not trying to offend or anything, just poke you a little), I know at least one non-virgin woman who waited until marriage to have sex with her fiancé and found out he just didn't cut it in the sack, and that played a large role in the eventual divorce. I'm not saying I had anything to do with that whole situation...but hey...I like to think I know what I'm doing more often than not.

greg

Do you honestly think that when you get married, you're locked into that level of skill for the rest of your life?
I really don't like it when people use this argument. So the first time you have sex is awkward. And? The whole point of a relationship is to grow closer together emotionally, mentally, and yes, physically. It's quite possible to 'get better.' And it's also important to make sure the relationship is built on more than just sex, because whether you like it or not, that's gonna fade.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

Doesn't matter, its already turned in Bible study.

Heh, those always end in pre-marital sex, anyway.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Do you honestly think that when you get married, you're locked into that level of skill for the rest of your life?
I really don't like it when people use this argument. So the first time you have sex is awkward. And? The whole point of a relationship is to grow closer together emotionally, mentally, and yes, physically. It's quite possible to 'get better.' And it's also important to make sure the relationship is built on more than just sex, because whether you like it or not, that's gonna fade.

Think of marriage as the 'real world'

It's probably best to get a 'degree' or multiple 'degrees' in college before you go and try to 'work' for the man'.



I jest, I jest

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Think of marriage as the 'real world'

It's probably best to get a 'degree' or multiple 'degrees' in college before you go and try to 'work' for the man'.



I jest, I jest

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sorry ebuddy, but your perceptions are more to do with your being an American Christian rather than just a Christian. In no way knocking you or your country, but it's clear to me (as an outsider) that a lot of current American Christian thinking is heavily culturally influenced (heck, your country even started that way: the Mayflower was, after all, chock full of Puritans). You've got folks like Dr. J. Vernon McGee putting their own extreme (and incorrect) interpretations into the mix all the time. Joseph Smith went one better, but it's the same sort of thing.

I seriously urge any Christian looking for the truth of things to read Young's Literal or the original lingo. Check the KJV for ease, by all means, but go back to YLT or original for the detail. Seriously.

I love the fact that he still doesn't think he's pulling a Salty.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

I love the fact that he still doesn't think he's pulling a Salty.

I'm not. Salty twists the words and meanings to suit his own desire for bumsex, thus introducing cultural taint. I adhere to the original meaning and disregard all cultural taint. So, in fact, I'm doing the exact opposite of what Salty does.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Well, even if your argument holds, the Bible is not the sole source for rules and customs of a religion. Celibacy of priests in the Catholic church is not rooted in the Bible, for instance, but a conscious decision by of a body of a church.

Problem is, the Bible should be the sole source of the rules and customs of the religion.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In the same manner, most flavors of Christianity do not accept one partner to be married to multiple partners at the same time.

And those "most flavors of Christianity" are wrong. They've taken man's law and labelled it up as God's law. That's blasphemy in my book.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And those "most flavors of Christianity" are wrong. They've taken man's law and labelled it up as God's law. That's blasphemy in my book.

I wasn't saying anything on how things should be, but rather how things are. Churches (= organizations) have added several layers, integrated bits and pieces of existing indigenous culture into Christianity (applies to other religions as well) and were subject to personal/political opinions of the people in power (within the hierarchy).

Some American Christians for instance (as you have rightfully pointed out) are not aware of the differences between the American flavors of Christianity and European flavors of Christianity -- which is rooted in cultural differences.

You also point to one very important issue where this comes into play: translations. Each time the Bible has been translated, the `true meaning' (which is subjective) has changed.

And thirdly: I see a tendency of people to use `their favorite interpretation of the Bible/Koran' to justify their actions -- which is obviously the `right' interpretation. ebuddy and you argue over this `right' interpretation. Why not leave religion out of the arguments altogether? (Not directly addressed at you.) Obviously the Bible is not the sole source of morality for Christians and you can still make claims that something is moral or immoral.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Problem is, the Bible should be the sole source of the rules and customs of the religion.

Holy Trinity?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Holy Trinity?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Holy Trinity?

Matthew 28:19 ?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Wow, you could have gone with the AAA and you went with the Dahms?

I'm beginning to worry about you Rumor.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wow, you could have gone with the AAA

Somebody sprayed JPEG all over their faces.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wow, you could have gone with the AAA and you went with the Dahms?

I'm beginning to worry about you Rumor.

The Dahms have bigger boobies.

I'm beginning to worry about you.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

The Dahms have bigger plastic inserts.

But the Dahms are like... ...exceedingly average. In fact, the fact that there's three of them makes them even more average, since they contribute 3x the averageness to the averageness of the average of average womanhood. And stuff.

Did I mention that I reckon they're average?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Think of marriage as the 'real world'

It's probably best to get a 'degree' or multiple 'degrees' in college before you go and try to 'work' for the man'.



I jest, I jest

But then again, I know guys who have been with many many girls, and girls still swear they suck in bed.

It's the effort that counts, guys, and knowing that there's a few "buttons" that girls tend to like. (Ask Wikipedia because that would probably go beyond "family content" that's sanctioned here).

Words to ask Wikipedia about:
G-Spot
Clitoris
expand reading from there.

(I did break my vow to celibacy before marriage after I engaged my fiancee, and she had had partners before me. She says our first time was her best time. First O during sex and everything. [I know, I know, girls will lie, but when I brought the fact that she would lie to make me feel better, she slapped me in the back of the head, so, I don't bring it up anymore ])

[Kevin]

Yeah the Wik gets pretty darn graphic with the vulvapics.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yeah the Wik gets pretty darn graphic with the vulvapics.

Its just screencaps from a Christina Aguilera video.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

*cough*

you're excused.

It doesn't state "the sexually immoral" at all.

indeed it does.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sorry ebuddy, but your perceptions are more to do with your being an American Christian rather than just a Christian. In no way knocking you or your country, but it's clear to me (as an outsider) that a lot of current American Christian thinking is heavily culturally influenced (heck, your country even started that way: the Mayflower was, after all, chock full of Puritans). You've got folks like Dr. J. Vernon McGee putting their own extreme (and incorrect) interpretations into the mix all the time. Joseph Smith went one better, but it's the same sort of thing.

Well, you've got one thing correct; I'm an American. I am neither J. Vernon McGee nor Joseph Smith however. This is of course to suggest that I'm either not capable of interpreting Scripture on my own or that you have no evangelicals in your country. Not a very logical argument either way.

What do I know though, I mean... our Mayflower was chock-full of Puritans.

I seriously urge any Christian looking for the truth of things to read Young's Literal or the original lingo. Check the KJV for ease, by all means, but go back to YLT or original for the detail. Seriously.

Young's Literal is a word-for-word translation based on the Textus Receptus used for the KJV translation. The difference is Young's Literal is strictly idiomatic and the KJV is the compilation of all its elements. I'm not sure whether or not the need to read Scripture in its entirety for full understanding is an exclusively American phenomena, but I can assure you this was the educated position of the numerous scholars who sat down with "the original lingo".

By definition, a whore is a promiscuous or immoral woman. Usually for money, but certainly not exclusively. The Bible is littered with affirmations of itself. By reading Scripture in its entirety, you are not hampered by confusion based on geography as you suggest with my alleged "Americanization".

The reason "whore" was translated to "prostitute" is because "prostitute" is a derivative of the Latin pro-stateure. "Pro" means prior to or before and "statuere" is crudely, law or statute. That would be "marriage" in context my friend. As if this weren't clear enough, Paul goes on to say: 1 Corinthians 6:15-18; Have you not known that your bodies are members of Christ? having taken, then, the members of the Christ, shall I make [them] members of an harlot? let it be not! 6:16 have you not known that he who is joined to the harlot is one body? `for they shall be -- says He -- the two for one flesh.' 6:17 And he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit; 6:18 flee the whoredom; every sin -- whatever a man may commit -- is without the body, and he who is committing whoredom, against his own body does sin.

How many words for "whore" do we need? Since this was the only one of my points you chose to address I'll take it as not so much a geographical misunderstanding as perhaps a personal conviction of sorts. You started your reply with "I'm sorry", but I'm not sure you owe me an apology.

The good news is in 1Corinthians 4:14; Not putting you to shame do I write these things, but as my beloved children I do admonish.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

But then again, I know guys who have been with many many girls, and girls still swear they suck in bed.

That's about ability not experience. Just like anything.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

That's about ability not experience. Just like anything.

And attitude.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

That's about ability not experience. Just like anything.

Originally Posted by subego 

And attitude.

Hit it like you mean it.®

[Dakar²]

That's practically a sig worthy quote.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I seriously urge any Christian looking for the truth of things to read Young's Literal or the original lingo. Check the KJV for ease, by all means, but go back to YLT or original for the detail. Seriously.

So you've gone to the 'original,' right? You've studied the Greek transcripts?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

So you've gone to the 'original,' right? You've studied the Greek transcripts?

... or the `original' books in Hebrew?
Doofy's point is that the translator includes his ideas in the translation. Since there are significant differences between the various translations, it would be hopeless to derive either `pre-marital sex is forbidden' or `pre-marital sex is ok' from the Bible. What it boils down to is that you have to decide for yourself, plain and simple.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

... or the `original' books in Hebrew?
Doofy's point is that the translator includes his ideas in the translation. Since there are significant differences between the various translations, it would be hopeless to derive either `pre-marital sex is forbidden' or `pre-marital sex is ok' from the Bible. What it boils down to is that you have to decide for yourself, plain and simple.

That is a good point. As much as the Bible talks about purity and having not even a hint of sexual immorality (Eph. 5:3) I'm going to err on the safe side and stay away from it. I just wish Doofy wouldn't claim his interpretation is the final authority in what God believes.

[Gossamer]

Oh yeah, I was talking to my roommate about this and here's what he said:
The word often translated "sexual immorality" in the NT comes from the greek word porneia which means "illicit sexual intercourse" which includes adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, incest.
for·ni·ca·tion –noun 1.voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Oh yeah, I was talking to my roommate about this and here's what he said:
The word often translated "sexual immorality" in the NT comes from the greek word porneia which means "illicit sexual intercourse" which includes adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, incest.

Yes, as I said, it means "illicit sexual intercourse." But it's tautological to say that this means premarital sex is wrong. "The Bible forbids immorality. Premarital sex is immoral. Thus, premarital sex is forbidden by the Bible." If we go in assuming that premarital sex counts as sexual immorality, of course we're going to come out with the idea that it's immoral!

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, as I said, it means "illicit sexual intercourse." But it's tautological to say that this means premarital sex is wrong. "The Bible forbids immorality. Premarital sex is immoral. Thus, premarital sex is forbidden by the Bible." If we go in assuming that premarital sex counts as sexual immorality, of course we're going to come out with the idea that it's immoral!

The Bible forbids illicit sexual intercourse which, since 100AD, has been read to include fornication. I think there's enough context and enough other content that one can safely assume they mean premarital sex.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

The Bible forbids illicit sexual intercourse which, since 100AD, has been read to include fornication. I think there's enough context and enough other content that one can safely assume they mean premarital sex.

They also used to read the Bible to say that it was evil for women to wear pants (because it was considered a sexual perversion). Taking your theology from ancient cultural assumptions — rather than any kind of objective or mystical reading of scripture — is the one religious practice that I feel is really weird.

[Gossamer]

Well Timothy discourages women from wearing their hair in braids too, but, like you said, it has to do with cultural significance.
However, I believe there is a striking difference between proper, culturally acceptable attire, and sexual activity. There are plenty of other verses that make a big deal out of the sex thing.

[Gossamer]

The Bible was written with ancient cultural assumptions and must be read as such - it is wrong for women to play the harlot or be sexually perverse - that plays out in their culture as wearing gold and pants - etc. It would play out in our culture as dressing in really skimpy clothes or whatever. But it is fairly easy to read what is an extension of the law (a specific cultural assumption) and what is the law itself, i.e. the restriction of not being sexually perverse vs wearing pants. Premarital sex is not a specific cultural assumption like wearing pants is. For instance, Paul says that you should get married if you can't restrain from having sex - so that you don't sin.
Premarital sex is a TYPE of immorality - not a culture implication of immorality

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The reason "whore" was translated to "prostitute" is because "prostitute" is a derivative of the Latin pro-stateure. "Pro" means prior to or before and "statuere" is crudely, law or statute. That would be "marriage" in context my friend. [/i][/b]

I haven't posted on this forum for such a long time! In fact this is the first time I've visited it for quite such time.

Now, what you are writing there does not seem right. The root of the verb'prostituo" is in fact 'prosto -are' which literally means 'to stand forth' ('pro', forth 'sto' I stand). However, the verb developed the meaning of 'to be on sale, be exposed for sale'. 'prostituo' is derived from the perfect stem of 'prosto' (which is 'prostiti'; sto -are is an irregular first conjugation verb). 'prosto' strictly speaking can refer to any sale, however its connotions are very sexual. Thus in English prostitution refers only to the sale of sexual services.

While 'statute' shares the same root, 'prostitution' has nothing to do with the word statute and also 'pro' in this context definitely does not mean 'prior'. 'statute' comes from the Latin verb 'statuo' which means in the context of law 'to decree' (literally it means 'to cause to stand). It too is formed off the root 'sto', from which 'prostituo' develops off, but it does not mean that the two words are related in meaning.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by undotwa 

Now, what you are writing there does not seem right. The root of the verb'prostituo" is in fact 'prosto -are' which literally means 'to stand forth' ('pro', forth 'sto' I stand). However, the verb developed the meaning of 'to be on sale, be exposed for sale'. 'prostituo' is derived from the perfect stem of 'prosto' (which is 'prostiti'; sto -are is an irregular first conjugation verb). 'prosto' strictly speaking can refer to any sale, however its connotions are very sexual. Thus in English prostitution refers only to the sale of sexual services.

While 'statute' shares the same root, 'prostitution' has nothing to do with the word statute and also 'pro' in this context definitely does not mean 'prior'. 'statute' comes from the Latin verb 'statuo' which means in the context of law 'to decree' (literally it means 'to cause to stand). It too is formed off the root 'sto', from which 'prostituo' develops off, but it does not mean that the two words are related in meaning.

Prostitute; Etymology: Latin prostitutus, past participle of prostituere, from pro- before + statuere to station

Statute; Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French estatut, from Late Latin statutum law, regulation, from Latin, neuter of statutus, past participle of statuere to set up, station, from status position, state

The words whore and harlot are also used in context. Prostitute is generally understood to be for money, but it also encompasses promiscuous sexual intercourse by definition and in Biblical context. Books that translate word for word passages such as Young's Literal are great for digging into specific passages because it is idiomatic however, the reading of the entire text (at least in this case the few passages preceding the one used in this thread and the ones following it) is critical for more thorough understanding.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Prostitute; Etymology: Latin prostitutus, past participle of prostituere, from pro- before + statuere to station

Statute; Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French estatut, from Late Latin statutum law, regulation, from Latin, neuter of statutus, past participle of statuere to set up, station, from status position, state

The words whore and harlot are also used in context. Prostitute is generally understood to be for money, but it also encompasses promiscuous sexual intercourse by definition and in Biblical context. Books that translate word for word passages such as Young's Literal are great for digging into specific passages because it is idiomatic however, the reading of the entire text (at least in this case the few passages preceding the one used in this thread and the ones following it) is critical for more thorough understanding.

Ebuddy - if you read my post you will see that I do not deny that these two words share original roots (the root of both words before 'sto -are', I stand).

You have to be very careful when dealing with these etymologies, especially if (as I gather) you have little understanding of Latin. The etymology is not wrong, but unless you understand Latin you will not understand how these words developed and your understanding of the etymology will be wrong. This is where you are getting confused. You are also getting confused between verbs and nouns.

In the etymology above 'pro' does not mean 'before' in a temporal sense, but a spatial sense. Thus what it means is 'to station before' (i.e. to put something before you, to sell you something). It has nothing to do with the idea of being 'before the law'. The word in Latin that refers to a temporal sense of 'before' is ante.

The word 'statutum', which means 'statute' also comes from the word 'sto' (I stand). It meaning is derived from the idea of 'standing' as referring to what is 'standing' as being the established rule of law (think of the phrase "The ruling stands").

'statuere' and 'statutum' are both formed off the root 'sto'. Thus the word 'prostitute' and 'statute' both derive from the same root (sto -are steti statum) but they are not related words in themselves.

Ebuddy, as you are probably aware, I'm on your side in much of what you say. However, if anyone makes such blaring mistakes as this, especially in something that is dear to me (classical languages), I cannot let this go unnoticed, in case you make an utter fool of yourself, especially when you are talking to someone else about this issue who is against what you are saying and also happens to be a classics student!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by undotwa 

Ebuddy, as you are probably aware, I'm on your side in much of what you say. However, if anyone makes such blaring mistakes as this, especially in something that is dear to me (classical languages), I cannot let this go unnoticed, in case you make an utter fool of yourself, especially when you are talking to someone else about this issue who is against what you are saying and also happens to be a classics student!

Who else is a classics student who is also against what I'm saying? What I'm saying is that the Bible is clearly opposed to premarital sex.

To be clear, I stand corrected on the history of the word "prostitute" as I was reading along and looked at the literal definition of the word. The roots given seemed ironic to me, coupled with the link within the definition for Statute. I should've worded my response as such.

In the interest of saving me from making a fool of myself by correcting my misunderstanding of the (classical languages), it seems you've put forth one whopper of a modern english infraction above; the run-on sentence. Of course neither indictment is really relevant to the discussion.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What I'm saying is that the Bible is clearly opposed to premarital sex.

Absolutely.

In the interest of saving me from making a fool of myself by correcting my misunderstanding of the (classical languages), it seems you've put forth one whopper of a modern english infraction above; the run-on sentence. Of course neither indictment is really relevant to the discussion.

Thanks for pointing that out! I didn't notice. Studying Latin does not help one's English style, because Latin sentences tend to be very long and filled with endless subordinate clauses.

[bojangles]

Getting back to the original post…

“The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government’s funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12- to 29-year-olds,” Finer said.

Maybe it’s just me, but that sounds like the best argument for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs I’ve ever heard!

To use a similar issue, if the number of rapes in America is increasing, which makes more sense:
• teach people that rape is wrong
• assume that people are going to get raped anyway, so let’s teach everyone to use a condom when they do it?

What about murder? Do we:
• teach people that murder is wrong
• assume that people are going to get murdered anyway, so teach everyone how to do it humanely?

There’s been a lot of criticism of this study—the number 95% has been greatly challenged—but we can probably all agree that it’s pretty high. If you’ve got a large percentage of the population committing an aberrant, self-destructive behavior, is the best response really to encourage it?

(And if so, why the heck are you using a Mac?)


Just my 2¢.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

To use a similar issue, if the number of rapes in America is increasing, which makes more sense:
• teach people that rape is wrong
• assume that people are going to get raped anyway, so let’s teach everyone to use a condom when they do it?

What about murder? Do we:
• teach people that murder is wrong
• assume that people are going to get murdered anyway, so teach everyone how to do it humanely?

Similar? Your argument is as stupid as it is tasteless.

Originally Posted by bojangles 

Just my 2¢.

Overvalued.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by bojangles 

To use a similar issue, if the number of rapes in America is increasing, which makes more sense:
• teach people that rape is wrong
• assume that people are going to get raped anyway, so let’s teach everyone to use a condom when they do it?

Neither of those make sense. What makes sense is what we do, put people in jail for rape. Do you think we should start jailing people for premarital sex?

If you’ve got a large percentage of the population committing an aberrant, self-destructive behavior, is the best response really to encourage it?

(And if so, why the heck are you using a Mac?)

I don't follow this at all. Not only do I disagree that premarital sex is aberrant or self-destructive, I don't see what is encouraged or discouraged by using a Mac.

[quattrokid73]

that percentage is quite sad considering the amount of issues presiding from intercourse that we have today.. ie STDs, Aids, adoption, father/motherless children, and divorce rate. our willingness to fling our genitals at others has a deep impact on the way we view gender, sexuality, and marriage, and our tendency to view relationships as something more physical than mental has caused a lot of problems for marriage; families lack stable enviornments for children to grow up in.

its not about whether premarital sex is right or wrong, but people seeing the bigger picture and learning how our decisions affect our futures and others as well.

PS. calling christians hypocrites for having premarital sex is absolutely absurd.

[Dakar²]

How is it absurd?

[BRussell]

Premarital sex? I'm having a difficult enough time getting marital sex.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by quattrokid73 

that percentage is quite sad considering the amount of issues presiding from intercourse that we have today.. ie STDs, Aids, adoption, father/motherless children, and divorce rate. our willingness to fling our genitals at others has a deep impact on the way we view gender, sexuality, and marriage, and our tendency to view relationships as something more physical than mental has caused a lot of problems for marriage; families lack stable enviornments for children to grow up in.

its not about whether premarital sex is right or wrong, but people seeing the bigger picture and learning how our decisions affect our futures and others as well.

PS. calling christians hypocrites for having premarital sex is absolutely absurd.

I agree with that for the most part. It doesn't make sense to call a Christ Follower who's trying as hard as he/she can to remain pure and holy in all areas of life, it's more than necessary to call out a high and mighty holier-than-thou Christian living in obvious sin.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Premarital sex? I'm having a difficult enough time getting marital sex.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I find it easier to believe if you consider it doesn't have to mean they had it in high school or college.

Think about this way. If you have 20 friends, that means at least 1 was a virgin until marriage.

I grew up in a pretty religious house and so did most of my friends... none of my close friends had sex before marriage. If you only knew one in twenty that didn't have sex before marriage it just meas that you grew up in an environment where it was accepted and that sex wasn't valued as highly to you and your friends.

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

...
I think the other group of Christians who successfully abstain(as opposed to lying about not having premarital sex) and arent gay-- have serious sexual hangups--probably imposed upon them because their religion has taught them that their naked bodies are disgusting and unholy and that sex should only be used for procreation.

Abstaining from sex until marriage pretty much just guarantees that your first time will be awkwardly bad sex because you'll both be so self-conscious. Hardly the emotional, spiritual, and physical ecstasy promised by the preacher in the pulpit.

I was not taught that my body was "disgusting and unholy and that sex should only be used for procreation", I was just taught that sex was something that should be done within the bonds of marriage. No hangups there, just a plain and simple teaching that I (and my friends) all followed. You don't have to belittle others (that you have no clue about) just because you don't believe the same things.

I think your first time will be awkward regardless of whether it is with your wife, or with some woman that isn't your wife. I would rather have (and did have) that awkward first time with someone I am married to. We have gotten quite a bit better since that first time, and since it was the first time for both of us we didn't have any hangups on how good or bad it was... it was (and still is) ALL good for us.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm not. Salty twists the words and meanings to suit his own desire for bumsex, thus introducing cultural taint. I adhere to the original meaning and disregard all cultural taint. So, in fact, I'm doing the exact opposite of what Salty does.

You are also introducing cultural taint on what the bible says. I am not trying to argue what the bible means with this, but any person that wasn't there at the time it was written is going to have a hard time knowing what was meant. A lot of the words they used most likely had totally different meaning to them than they do to us. Reading the bible today is great (any version), but I don't think you should claim no cultural taint when you are actually reading it with a 100% taint on it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Neither of those make sense. What makes sense is what we do, put people in jail for rape. Do you think we should start jailing people for premarital sex?

I think it made sense... he was saying that he believes when a lot of people start doing something that used to be considered immoral/wrong doesn't mean that it should all of the suddent become okay. I think that's all he was getting at.