|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Ambiguity of Fornication
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In my experience, it's not so much that Evangelicals have a problem with it, as that it just doesn't happen. I'm pretty sure that if you asked an Evangelical "Is chaste cohabitation sinful?" they'd say "No", but Evangelicals don't seem to do it. And my question is why.
An evangelical friend of mine bought a house with her husband-to-be a couple of months before their wedding, and they both moved in because they couldn't afford the mortgage AND the rent on one of two flats in which they were living. I'm pretty certain that they lived chastely for those months.
However their vicar was most unhappy about the arrangement and (to my mind bizarrely) counselled them strongly not to live separate but to have a civil wedding immediately. I thought (and said) that this would be ridiculous - if they counted the civil service as effecting a real marriage, then they would be turning their planned church wedding months later into just a nice performance and not the life-changing event that they intended. If they counted the church service as the real deal, then the civil service would give the appearance of (and possibly even be a temptation to) what in my friend's mind would be fornication. Happily, she declined the vicar's advice, and cohabited chastely until the church wedding took place.
There probably were people who assumed that she was having sex - but then there are many people who will assume that any long-term couple has had sex. I think that my friend was right not to arrange her life to accommodate the ill-deemers - but it required some degree of self-confidence to do that in a strongly evangelical culture.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But why should they be called sinful fornicators if they choose to live together rather than marry?
A couple who live together and care well for each other and their children should not be condemned by anyone, least of all the Church.
You are conflating the very different issues of what the Church should teach and what it should condemn.
I have no interest in calling anyone a sinful fornicator. However the experience and teaching of the Church supports (and has long supported) formal, socially recognised, committed marriage as a mode of Christian discipleship. Someone who is living with a sexual partner, and who earnestly desires to live a holy life, can rightly be counselled to marry, without the need to condemn anyone at all.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But why should they be called sinful fornicators if they choose to live together rather than marry?
A couple who live together and care well for each other and their children should not be condemned by anyone, least of all the Church.
You are conflating the very different issues of what the Church should teach and what it should condemn.
So do parts of the Church in my experience.
They even refuse office to those who are co-habiting. Is this not condemnation? It certainly isn't acceptance.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I think what I'm outlining - for myself - is my attitude towards cohabitation. Agreeing to live as a permanent partner with another person, where one merges ones existence with someone else's.
If it really isn't a major life change moving from a single independent life to a life spent with a committed life partner (albeit unmarried) I can only imagine that the 'couple' aren't getting the partnership thing quite right!
But is that "agreement" actually what happens? In my admittedly limited experience, it seems to be that a couple often move in together without any agreement of permanence. In fact that seems to be one of the "selling points" of co-habitation - a flexible "let's see how it goes" attitude. Then as time goes on, it gradually morphs (without anyone actually saying so) into that permanent commitment you were talking about. And I think that sometimes this is the point at which long-term co-habiting couples then get married - a sort of "well, we're virtually married now anyhow, why not admit it?"
Yes, I think that's what happens a lot of the time. That's why I said I was probably very selfish. I just can't imagine having a 'let's see how it goes' attitude to moving my independence and freedom of living over to a potentially short-lived non-committal arrangement of living with a boyfriend.
For me, personally, I would no more do that as I would ship my life over to a foreign country with a 'let's see how it goes' attitude. The commitment for such a big move in either case would need to be pretty huge. But in many ways, I'm an all or nothing gal, so I wouldn't want to to hold others to my inflexible attitude towards myself in this situation.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In my experience, it's not so much that Evangelicals have a problem with it, as that it just doesn't happen. I'm pretty sure that if you asked an Evangelical "Is chaste cohabitation sinful?" they'd say "No", but Evangelicals don't seem to do it. And my question is why.
An evangelical friend of mine bought a house with her husband-to-be a couple of months before their wedding, and they both moved in because they couldn't afford the mortgage AND the rent on one of two flats in which they were living. I'm pretty certain that they lived chastely for those months.
That reminds me of a vicar I knew who was making a big deal about a couple who wished to get married. They had been attending the church as a cohabiting couple for a long time and now wanted to get married. The vicar was trying to figure out what was the way with the most integrity - eg, tell them to get a civil union with a blessing afterwards; recommend they occupy different accommodations til the marriage.
It all came down to the fact, of course, that they were, presumably, sexually active. Ironically, if they had been sexually active but not cohabiting, no-one would've batted an eyelid or instigated an inquisition. I thought he was giving himself more problems than he needed to deal with!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
My brother and his 2nd wife "co-habited" for a while before they got married. Not only co-habited but bought a house together. They were (and are) Roman Catholics. Their problem was not co-habitation but rather the difficulty in getting his first marriage ecclesiastically annulled. (It should have been a slam-dunk since the 1st wedding was practically a shotgun wedding rushed into, but that's another kettle of fish) But the interesting thing is that their (Roman Catholic) pastor who worked with them through the whole annulment attempt process that was going nowhere finally suggested that they get married in the Episcopal church, which they did. An Episcopal priest presided, and the Roman Catholic priest took part in the service as well. I know because I was best man.
But co-habitation wasn't an issue for either priest. And my brother and his wife have been happily married for a quarter century. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 30. November 2010, 18:49: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Zoey, the youngsters I know in this situation want time to save up for a posh wedding. They put great store on having a really 'special' day, which (they feel) costs more than they can yet afford.
Not to mention that any wedding-reception venue worthy of their exacting standards must be booked two or three years in advance. That's the tail that tends to wag the dog hereabouts.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It's becoming quite common hereabouts for the couple to only decide to get married when they already have a baby (or decide to delay the marriage ceremony until after the baby has been born). When the couple go up to the altar after the main marriage service is over, the vicar asks for their baby to be brought up to the altar as well, so they can all be blessed together.
Recently, we had a marriage with baptism, so it was all done at once while the guests were already in church, to save them all coming back again for the christening. I did wonder whether they were going to go for a hat-trick and bury Great Uncle Herbert at the same time!
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
I don't think the concept of living-together-in-a-sexual-relationship existed, excluding concubines.
It did exist, it was called πορνεία and ἐγκρατεύομαι (egkrateuomai - to control oneself, to exercise self-control) was (and still is) the solution.
That is certainly your assertion, but what Paul actually meany by porneia is very much at the heart of this debate. Etymologically, there is a linkage between porneia and prostitution, but, of course, etymology is not meaning. If I had to take a punt on it, I would guess that, from the context, Paul condemned sexual behaviour outside or within marriage which involved prostitution (explicitly cultic, since idolatry seems to have been on his mind, but almost certainly commercial as well), and by extension any sexual conduct that was demeaning or exploitative. But a punt is all it would be. I'm fairly confident, though, that he didn't mean people who were in a long term, committed relationship. There is nothing whatever in the context that suggests that "living together" was what he had in mind.
Wishful thinking is a very powerful thing JJ. I'm sorry to say it such such theological gymnastics give ethical and moral theology and bad name. I Cor 7:2 πορνεία simply doesn't read in the way that you're suggesting, particularly in the light of Paul's instruction to the unmarried and the widowed in verse 8.
Also, Jesus's use of the word πορνεία in Mark 7 doesn't lend itself at all well to a narrow focus on prostitution. No, πορνεία is a broad umbrella term for sexual sin which (according to 1 Cor. 7:8) includes consenting sex based on mutual attraction outside of marriage.
[ 01. December 2010, 06:47: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
quote:
So do parts of the Church in my experience.
They even refuse office to those who are co-habiting. Is this not condemnation? It certainly isn't acceptance.
It's known as something called discernment ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[code]
[ 03. December 2010, 01:18: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Numpty, as you recall from my post, I did not restrict porneia only to prostitution. I think it's pretty clear that Paul had a more extended use for the term. But equally, it is not at all demonstrable that he used it as a catch all for all and every kind of sexual activity outside of marriage. The use of "porneia" in I Cor 7:2 is quite compatible with Paul using the word to mean prostitution, or the wider promiscuity, as well as the reading you take. No theological gymnastics there, just the (ok, a) plain reading of the text. Verse 9 does not even mention porneia; the plain meaning of the text there is that sexual fulfilment in marriage is a better than allowing one's life to be controlled by the raging emotions of sexual frustration (with a little bit of bachelor smugness perhaps thrown in ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) ). I remain unconvinced that there was a complete break in Paul's mind between his mental concept of "porneia" and prostitution, though I accept that he used the term more widely. As such, I think it highly unlikely that he would have thought that a long term marriage-like sexual relationship could be categorised as "porneia".
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
(I am not a theologian or Greek scholar. However, I have been wondering, in the course of this thread recently, whether CmN believes that sexual relations within marriage can ever be harmful or negative?)
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
quote:
So do parts of the Church in my experience.
They even refuse office to those who are co-habiting. Is this not condemnation? It certainly isn't acceptance.
It's known as something called discernment
Nonsense - it's called judgementalism laced with complete confusion over fidelity, sexuality and committment.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zoey:
(I am not a theologian or Greek scholar. However, I have been wondering, in the course of this thread recently, whether CmN believes that sexual relations within marriage can ever be harmful or negative?)
Certainly.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
quote:
So do parts of the Church in my experience.
They even refuse office to those who are co-habiting. Is this not condemnation? It certainly isn't acceptance.
It's known as something called discernment
Wouldn't "discernment" imply some degree of acute pastoral and spiritual sensitivity to the circumstances of the particular couple, their degree of culpability, and the best way for the Church to cooperate with the Holy Spirit? A "No fornicators welcome" policy at the altar is not "discerning". Even if you think it's right.
Someone who is strongly convinced that sex is for marriage, but nonetheless lives unmarried with a sexual partner in deliberate and knowing disobedience to (what they understand to be) God's commands is in a very different position to someone who believes that their cohabitation is acceptable and pleasing to God as a means of living out their love for their partner. Even from the most conservative point of view, the first is doctrinally correct but a poor disciple, whereas the second is factually mistaken but may well be devoted to God in heart and soul. ‘Discernment' would mean that there is at least the possibility of treating the two cases differently.
Personally, I rather hope that my priest would have the courage to call me to account if he knew that I was living contrary to my clear beliefs about sexual morality - but I would be horrified if he started refusing sacraments to people in our church who are trying to live godly lives and merely disagree with me about what that ought to involve.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think it highly unlikely that he would have thought that a long term marriage-like sexual relationship could be categorised as "porneia".
The use of Genesis 2:24 by Jesus and Paul says that "a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh".
The old way of describing this is that a man "leaves" his parents and "cleaves" to his wife. In 1 Corinthians 6:6 Paul argues against the use of prostitutes because such sexual immorality is a mockery of marriage, not a mockery of sexual monogamy. There is no suggestion that it is just married men who should not use prostitutes. The command for for men not to use prostitutes because such behaviour is a mockery of marriage.
In Mark 10 Jesus cites Genesis 2:24 in the context of a discussion concerning divorce, which is the official dissolution of marriage. Jesus, therefore, is of the opinion that God joins people together in [/i]marriage[/i] so that they are one flesh.
The Apostle Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 says that marriage is the proper course of action for virgins and widows who find themselves being irresistibly sexually attracted to someone (πυρόομαι - being sexually aroused, to burn with sexual desire).
[ 01. December 2010, 11:41: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
But all you're saying is that the New Testament describes marriage as good and prostitution as bad. It doesn't explicitly say anything about any intermediate point.
Also, the text doesn't say anything about burning with sexual desire for someone. Is there a reason not to suppose it's talking about sexual frustration?
(I believe Galen taught that a lack of sexual activity could cause physical ill health, especially for women, which manifests itself in fainting fits and shortness of breath.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But all you're saying is that the New Testament describes marriage as good and prostitution as bad.
Ah, this must come down to lack of clarity on my part because that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the bible says that prostitution is bad because it mocks marriage. I'll say it again, the bible says that prostitution is bad because it makes a mockery not of sexual monogamy but the joining of two people by God as husband and wife (i.e. marriage).
What you say about 1 Cor 7:8,9 doesn't make any sense at all. The text is Paul's advice to virgins and widows who are experiencing strong sexual desire. His solution? Marriage. Why? In order to avoid πορνεία (porneia) as per verse 2.
[ 01. December 2010, 12:38: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Why i.e. marriage?
If God joins two people outside marriage then it's just as legitimate a union. The fact that you can't see the union is neither here nor there.
God and the couple are the only ones who can truly know.
There must be some marriages where the sex is simply a physical act with no spiritual union at all - are you going to hang around in their bedrooms to judge them too?
<typo>
[ 01. December 2010, 12:42: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why i.e. marriage?
If God joins two people outside marriage then it's just as legitimate a union. The fact that you can't see the union is neither here nor there.
God and the couple are the only ones who can truly know.
I disagree. Here's why. Paul doesn't counsel widows and unmarried people (ἄγαμος) to just have sex and not worry about "burning with passion". He doesn't say, look if you've started having sex with your boyfriend then that's OK. No, he says "get married". He says that ἄγαμος (unmarried) should become (γαμέω) married. How? By having a wedding.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why i.e. marriage?
If God joins two people outside marriage then it's just as legitimate a union. The fact that you can't see the union is neither here nor there.
God and the couple are the only ones who can truly know.
I disagree. Here's why. Paul doesn't counsel widows and unmarried people (ἄγαμος) to just have sex and not worry about "burning with passion". He doesn't say, look if you've started having sex with your boyfriend then that's OK. No, he says "get married". He says that ἄγαμος (unmarried) should become (γαμέω) married. How? By having a wedding.
And that very last bit is where your argument is in trouble. Because, as already shown in this thread, 'having a wedding' was NOT the way that most people became husband and wife for large parts of our history - centuries and centuries during which people became husband and wife without the kind of formal wedding ceremony we now talk about.
And that's Boogie's point in her post: 'married' in God's eyes does NOT necessarily mean 'has gone through earthly wedding ceremony'. A wedding is not a marriage. All those Bible passages you have just been quoted talk about marriage. They do not talk about 'having a wedding'. It does NOT say that if you're single and can't control your passions, it's best that you 'have a wedding'.
[ 01. December 2010, 13:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why i.e. marriage?
If God joins two people outside marriage then it's just as legitimate a union. The fact that you can't see the union is neither here nor there.
God and the couple are the only ones who can truly know.
I disagree. Here's why. Paul doesn't counsel widows and unmarried people (ἄγαμος) to just have sex and not worry about "burning with passion". He doesn't say, look if you've started having sex with your boyfriend then that's OK. No, he says "get married". He says that ἄγαμος (unmarried) should become (γαμέω) married. How? By having a wedding.
And that very last bit is where your argument is in trouble. Because, as already shown in this thread, 'having a wedding' was NOT the way that most people became husband and wife for large parts of our history - centuries and centuries during which people became husband and wife without the kind of formal wedding ceremony we now talk about.
And that's Boogie's point in her post: 'married' in God's eyes does NOT necessarily mean 'has gone through earthly wedding ceremony'. A wedding is not a marriage. All those Bible passages you have just been quoted talk about marriage. They do not talk about 'having a wedding'. It does NOT say that if you're single and can't control your passions, it's best that you 'have a wedding'.
The word marriage in Greek is the same word for having a wedding, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast. It is also the name of the wedding venue or hall, so that argument simply doesn't work. You're right a marriage is not a wedding, but a wedding does begin a marriage. That's why it's called getting married.
A marriage at the time of Christ was a public affair involving a banquet as in the wedding at Cana. This, undoubtedly, is what Paul is talking about when he counsels unmarried and widows to marry. He is talking about the whole complex of marriage - the whole shebang, including the life-long shebang of being married.
[ 01. December 2010, 13:40: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ByHisBlood
Shipmate
# 16018
|
Posted
Boogie quote:
Nonsense - it's called judgementalism laced with complete confusion over fidelity, sexuality and committment.
So are you accusing Jesus of being confused in His stance concerning fornication?
--------------------
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" - Romans 5:9
Posts: 220 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Boogie quote:
Nonsense - it's called judgementalism laced with complete confusion over fidelity, sexuality and committment.
So are you accusing Jesus of being confused in His stance concerning fornication?
So you're saying you're as accurate in your judgments as Jesus? If not, this point is irrelevant. If so, you need an egodecomy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm saying that the bible says that prostitution is bad because it mocks marriage. I'll say it again, the bible says that prostitution is bad because it makes a mockery not of sexual monogamy but the joining of two people by God as husband and wife (i.e. marriage).
OK. So is your position:
a. The New Testament discusses sex exclusively as within porneia (bad) or marriage (good),
b. Therefore any non-marital sex must be porneia and bad.
I think that's a reasonable conclusion, just not the only one. It could be that the New Testament writers haven't left us an opinion on sex that isn't either prostitution or marriage. It could be that such sex wasn't common (though to be honest I doubt this).
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Boogie quote:
Nonsense - it's called judgementalism laced with complete confusion over fidelity, sexuality and committment.
So are you accusing Jesus of being confused in His stance concerning fornication?
Well, given that St Matthew (5:32) presents Jesus allowing divorce in the case of porneia, whereas St Mark (10: 1-12) has Jesus forbidding divorce in all circumstances whatsoever, it's clear that someone got confused, though I'd be inclined to say it was the Evangelists ...
(The New Jerusalem Bible avoids the contradiction by translating porneia in St Matthew as "illicit marriage", which gets round the problem of inaccuracies in the apostolic witness, but rather destroys the argument that porneia means "all non-marital sexual activity".)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(The New Jerusalem Bible avoids the contradiction by translating porneia in St Matthew as "illicit marriage", which gets round the problem of inaccuracies in the apostolic witness, but rather destroys the argument that porneia means "all non-marital sexual activity".)
Does it? In some ways, I'd have thought it strengthened the case in that sexual activity achieved marriage but that said marriages could be illicit when without the confines of 'marriage'.
I'm don't think I'm arguing for that position but I think it'd be a reasonable one. (Given that, for example, one can indeed, according to the RCC at least (I'm not sure what my own CofE teaches on this), go through a civil or, indeed, ecclesiastical second marriage and it not be a licit one. Hmmm, that raises a question: if one applies for an annulment in the RCC and it is granted, has one been fornicating for the preceding howeverlong?)
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The New Jerusalem Bible avoids the contradiction by translating porneia in St Matthew as "illicit marriage"...
Do they really?
If so its a clear case of deliberately mistranslating the Bible to fit post-Apostolic developments in doctrine. Bordering on dishonest.
Much more so than the comparitively trivial business of "virgin" vs "young girl" some people seem to think invalidates the NIV. A reason to be wary of using NJB as your main Bible translation.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The New Jerusalem Bible avoids the contradiction by translating porneia in St Matthew as "illicit marriage"...
Do they really?
If so its a clear case of deliberately mistranslating the Bible to fit post-Apostolic developments in doctrine. Bordering on dishonest.
Much more so than the comparitively trivial business of "virgin" vs "young girl" some people seem to think invalidates the NIV. A reason to be wary of using NJB as your main Bible translation.
There's a rather dubious argument in favour here, from page 12 onwards. But I'm not particularly defending the NJB. My feeling is rather:
a. If porneia is interpreted in a broad sense, then St Matthew and St Luke are in contradiction, which is an argument against using the New Testament to establish absolute moral prohibitions;
b. If porneia is interpreted so narrowly as to keep St Matthew and St Luke reasonably unequivocal, then it can't safely be taken elsewhere in the New Testament to mean "all non-marital sex".
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It's becoming quite common hereabouts for the couple to only decide to get married when they already have a baby (or decide to delay the marriage ceremony until after the baby has been born). When the couple go up to the altar after the main marriage service is over, the vicar asks for their baby to be brought up to the altar as well, so they can all be blessed together.
Recently, we had a marriage with baptism, so it was all done at once while the guests were already in church, to save them all coming back again for the christening. I did wonder whether they were going to go for a hat-trick and bury Great Uncle Herbert at the same time!
I have been reliably informed that the Church of Iceland's wedding service provides for the baptism of the children at the same event.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The word marriage in Greek is the same word for having a wedding, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast. It is also the name of the wedding venue or hall, so that argument simply doesn't work. You're right a marriage is not a wedding, but a wedding does begin a marriage. That's why it's called getting married.
A marriage at the time of Christ was a public affair involving a banquet as in the wedding at Cana. This, undoubtedly, is what Paul is talking about when he counsels unmarried and widows to marry. He is talking about the whole complex of marriage - the whole shebang, including the life-long shebang of being married.
So what does that mean for all the people down the centuries who didn't have a wedding in order to get married? For example, see Louise's post on page 4 about Scottish law: were all those legally married Scots actually engaged, in your view, in porneia?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by ByHisBlood:
Boogie quote:
Nonsense - it's called judgementalism laced with complete confusion over fidelity, sexuality and committment.
So are you accusing Jesus of being confused in His stance concerning fornication?
Well, given that St Matthew (5:32) presents Jesus allowing divorce in the case of porneia, whereas St Mark (10: 1-12) has Jesus forbidding divorce in all circumstances whatsoever, it's clear that someone got confused, though I'd be inclined to say it was the Evangelists ...
(The New Jerusalem Bible avoids the contradiction by translating porneia in St Matthew as "illicit marriage", which gets round the problem of inaccuracies in the apostolic witness, but rather destroys the argument that porneia means "all non-marital sexual activity".)
Well, not destroy perhaps. William Temple claimed that this exception referred to the case where one of the partners was unchaste prior to the marriage and was thus entering into it under false pretences. The marriage would thus be illicit because of the porneia.
I guess it would make sense for Matthew to record this exception for internal consistency, since he also records (and seems to approve of) Joseph planning to set aside Mary for exactly this reason.
A strained interpretation perhaps - but not obviously absurd.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I would've thought two cohabiting adults getting married (leave aside their 12 children being baptised after as a side issue, please ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) would, in the case of these two, prevent further fornication on their part.
Sounds like a clash of Ideals and Reality. 'Let he/she who is perfect ...' ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The word marriage in Greek is the same word for having a wedding, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast. It is also the name of the wedding venue or hall, so that argument simply doesn't work. You're right a marriage is not a wedding, but a wedding does begin a marriage. That's why it's called getting married.
A marriage at the time of Christ was a public affair involving a banquet as in the wedding at Cana. This, undoubtedly, is what Paul is talking about when he counsels unmarried and widows to marry. He is talking about the whole complex of marriage - the whole shebang, including the life-long shebang of being married.
So what does that mean for all the people down the centuries who didn't have a wedding in order to get married? For example, see Louise's post on page 4 about Scottish law: were all those legally married Scots actually engaged, in your view, in porneia?
This is tangential to the main argument, which is about whether cohabitation in the first century Palestine would have been considered sinful. I'm saying it would have been. I'm also saying that such a view - which is the Apostolic view - is objectively correct and bound by culture or time.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
... Hmmm, that raises a question: if one applies for an annulment in the RCC and it is granted, has one been fornicating for the preceding howeverlong?
Thurible
That would be the logical conclusion, and any children would be illegitimate.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
and any children would be illegitimate.
No, the children would be regarded as legitimate for that's a civil rather than canon thing. See the Diocese of Shrewsbury, for example:
quote:
What about the children? Will annulment mean they become illegitimate?
No. In Canon Law children are legitimate if their parents are married at the time the child’s birth, even if that marriage is later annulled. Obviously the decisions of the Tribunal have no effect on the law of England, and so they are considered legitimate in civil law before the annulment is granted, they will remain so afterwards.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Salvation Army, AFAICT, advocate a totally spiritualized approach to the dominical sacraments in which the outward and visible signs are seen as unnecessary adjuncts to the gracious spiritual reality. That is what you are suggesting concerning marriage.
Are you under the impression that the outward and visible sign of the sacrament of marriage is the marriage ceremony, or anything in it???
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
This is tangential to the main argument, which is about whether cohabitation in the first century Palestine would have been considered sinful. I'm saying it would have been.
I'm sure it would have been. But, for whatever reason, the Bible doesn't say that it was. We infer it from our models of society in those days which are informed by a lot of other historical and tradtional sources.
And even though I am pretty sure it would have been considered wrong, I am not sure whether or not it came into the range of meaning of the word porneia.
Which does have some relevance to those people who try to be rigorous about applying Scriptural rules to marriage and divorce. I have read Christian writers who believe that the a previous sexual relationship prior to a marriage is sufficient reason to allow a Christian to divorce their spouse, because it is porneia. I have read others who say that only sexual immorality committed during the marriage would be such reason. That might make a real difference to lives.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
and any children would be illegitimate.
No, the children would be regarded as legitimate for that's a civil rather than canon thing. See the Diocese of Shrewsbury, for example:
quote:
What about the children? Will annulment mean they become illegitimate?
No. In Canon Law children are legitimate if their parents are married at the time the child’s birth, even if that marriage is later annulled. Obviously the decisions of the Tribunal have no effect on the law of England, and so they are considered legitimate in civil law before the annulment is granted, they will remain so afterwards.
Thurible
The entire concept of a chid being "illegitimate", whether in civil or ecclesiastical terms, is entirely grotesque and vile and should be utterly eradicated as a viable concept. Yes, i feel very strongly about this.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The Salvation Army, AFAICT, advocate a totally spiritualized approach to the dominical sacraments in which the outward and visible signs are seen as unnecessary adjuncts to the gracious spiritual reality. That is what you are suggesting concerning marriage.
Are you under the impression that the outward and visible sign of the sacrament of marriage is the marriage ceremony, or anything in it???
Being a GLE I take perverse pride in not accepting that marriage is a sacrament, so enlighten me. Are you suggesting that the outward and visible sign is sexual intercourse?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Numpty asks:
Are you suggesting that the outward and visible sign is sexual intercourse?
Yes, so I have been taught; and, aside from the risk of pregnancy, this teaching constitutes the best argument against extramarital sex that I can think of.
If you'd like to disabuse me of this scruple, feel free.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
That's certainly how C S Lewis read Paul.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The word marriage in Greek is the same word for having a wedding, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast. It is also the name of the wedding venue or hall, so that argument simply doesn't work. You're right a marriage is not a wedding, but a wedding does begin a marriage. That's why it's called getting married.
A marriage at the time of Christ was a public affair involving a banquet as in the wedding at Cana. This, undoubtedly, is what Paul is talking about when he counsels unmarried and widows to marry. He is talking about the whole complex of marriage - the whole shebang, including the life-long shebang of being married.
So what does that mean for all the people down the centuries who didn't have a wedding in order to get married? For example, see Louise's post on page 4 about Scottish law: were all those legally married Scots actually engaged, in your view, in porneia?
This is tangential to the main argument, which is about whether cohabitation in the first century Palestine would have been considered sinful. I'm saying it would have been. I'm also saying that such a view - which is the Apostolic view - is objectively correct and bound by culture or time.
I would have thought the main argument is whether God considers cohabitation sinful. Frankly, I don't give a shit what a first century Palestinian would have considered sinful, unless it's the same as what God considers sinful.
Now, unless you're going to argue that God's views on these matters change to suit the morals of the time, those Scots aren't 'tangential'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Numpty asks:
Are you suggesting that the outward and visible sign is sexual intercourse?
Yes, so I have been taught; and, aside from the risk of pregnancy, this teaching constitutes the best argument against extramarital sex that I can think of.
If you'd like to disabuse me of this scruple, feel free.
Not at all. I'm happy with it. I'm just not happy with the idea that sexual intercourse constitutes or in any way effects marriage.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gurdur
Shipmate
# 857
|
Posted
Some people would be far better off having a fuck rather than blathering on and on about it.
Let's face it, fornication is pretty small stuff in the great scheme of life. The amount of attention being paid to what others do for fun is way out of proportion to its actual effects.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Some people would be far better off having a fuck rather than blathering on and on about it.
Let's face it, fornication is pretty small stuff in the great scheme of life. The amount of attention being paid to what others do for fun is way out of proportion to its actual effects.
There are other threads to read if this one doesn't suit your fancy. This one happens to be about fornication.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Some people would be far better off having a fuck rather than blathering on and on about it.
Let's face it, fornication is pretty small stuff in the great scheme of life. The amount of attention being paid to what others do for fun is way out of proportion to its actual effects.
There are other threads to read if this one doesn't suit your fancy. This one happens to be about fornication.
Also, while sex is pleasurable, some of us DO think there's a bit more to it than it being 'fun'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The word marriage in Greek is the same word for having a wedding, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast. It is also the name of the wedding venue or hall, so that argument simply doesn't work. You're right a marriage is not a wedding, but a wedding does begin a marriage. That's why it's called getting married.
A marriage at the time of Christ was a public affair involving a banquet as in the wedding at Cana. This, undoubtedly, is what Paul is talking about when he counsels unmarried and widows to marry. He is talking about the whole complex of marriage - the whole shebang, including the life-long shebang of being married.
So what does that mean for all the people down the centuries who didn't have a wedding in order to get married? For example, see Louise's post on page 4 about Scottish law: were all those legally married Scots actually engaged, in your view, in porneia?
This is tangential to the main argument, which is about whether cohabitation in the first century Palestine would have been considered sinful. I'm saying it would have been. I'm also saying that such a view - which is the Apostolic view - is objectively correct and [not]* bound by culture or time.
I would have thought the main argument is whether God considers cohabitation sinful. Frankly, I don't give a shit what a first century Palestinian would have considered sinful, unless it's the same as what God considers sinful.
There verse I've been talking about in this regard is 1 Cor.7:8-9. quote:
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Marriage is advised for those who 'cannot control themselves". Paul is presenting a choice: abstinence or marriage.
The question that we're discussing - and that I'm finding the most challenging - is what precisely constitutes and effect marriage? In other words, how precisely are two people joined (lit. married) in order to become one flesh?
If sexual intercourse is the outward and visible sign of marriage, what effects the inward and spiritual grace? Is it just God? Is the church (the people and/or the institution) involved? All I do know is that the Apostle says, "they should marry". And the context of this advice argues against the idea that "just having committed sex" [/i]is[/i] marriage. On the contrary, it suggests that marriage is the Apostle's solution to "just having sex".
The OP suggests that mutual (and perhaps communal) consent to view the relationship as marriage and consummation is sufficient to effect marriage.
Others suggest that formal and legal notions of 'marriage' as an institution or state are unnecessary and indeed unhelpful and that sex between two consenting adults is sufficient.
I'm suggesting that the Apostolic view is that pre-marital and extra-marital sex were both considered to be porneia and that - according to both Jesus and Paul - marriage was (and is) therefore the only context for sex.
However, this discussion has opened up considerations regarding the means by which people become married. Clearly we do not conduct our marriages in the same way they did in 1st century Palestine: there are variables. So what precisely does a "valid" marriage require? What's the bear minimum, if you like?
*added to correct omission.
[ 03. December 2010, 08:56: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Exactly. Which is why I asked about the Scots. Because they were regarded as married without ever having gone through a wedding ceremony.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Marriage is advised for those who 'cannot control themselves".
No it isn't. Paul said it was "better to marry than to burn".
People used to be split on what that meant. Some thought he meant better to marry than to burn in hell for sin. Others that it was better to marry than to burn metaphorically, with emotion with lust, with passion, with regret, whatever.
These days everyone seems to assume he meant the second of those. The translation you quoted assumes that and rather dodgily supplies the phrase "with passion" which rules out a lot of perfectly plausible translations even if we take it as metaphorical.
Either way, Paul says nothing about people who cannot "control themselves" here. And I don't think he would. The lie that there are men who "cannot control themselves" is regularly trotted out as an excuse for rapists and abusers. Its nonsense.
Anyway, what Paul said seems reasonably uncontroversial - is there anyone who thinks it is better to burn than to marry? - but particularly unhelpful for the many millions of single people who would want to be married but don't have anyone to marry - a situation not envisaged by the Bible at all but at the heart of the discussion we are having here.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
