# Rebuke from Gospel Artist over out of wedlock baby



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Feb 5, 2014)

*Strange Rebuke From Gospel Singer Over Having Star Athlete’s Baby*


Jan 13, 2014 

By Oretha Winston, Lead Editor 










Rhymes With Snitch alerted everyone to this post on her Instagram page.
Dwight Howard’s baby momma, Christine Vest has taken her critics to task in a strange rebuke on instagram! Read the below:




Share on Facebook Share on Twitter 


Just in case you were wondering what the theology on this is:
- Fornication is a sin against oneself. Paul said, “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body, but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body” I Corinthians 6:18.
- Fornication is a sin against the other person involved. It is always a mutual sin engaged in by two or more. Involving others in your own sin, You sin against them. If your convictions had been strong perhaps they would have been encouraged to do right. Corinthians 7:2, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband”. Temptation is not a sin fornication is.
-The dictionary meaning of the word “fornication” means any unlawful sexual intercourse including adultery. In the Bible the Greek definition of the word “fornication” means to commit illicit sexual intercourse.
Might we add that the best part of her post is:
_If you want to rebuke me for fornicating, thanks, but I have repented already. But if you’re trying to hurt me by criticizing my choice to KEEP MY CHILD, then you’re worse than me and wasting you’re time because to me YOU LOOK FOOLISH! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_​We think someone is running from theology and a scolding. What do you think?

http://elev8.com/1213451/strange-rebuke-from-gospel-singer-over-having-star-athletes-baby/


----------



## momi (Feb 5, 2014)

I find the entire post very strange.  Not only do I not understand her warped theology, I don't even understand the point she is trying to make. 

:headscratch:


----------



## felic1 (Feb 5, 2014)

She should have kept those statements inside. People sound foolish?


----------



## Keen (Feb 5, 2014)

Aside from her calling people dumb, I have always found it strange people who get pregnant out of wedlock get the sinner treatment by those fornicating themselves. Fornicating is fornicating whether you ended up pregnant or aborted the baby or on birth control.


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Feb 5, 2014)

momi said:


> I find the entire post very strange. Not only do I not understand her warped theology, I don't even understand the point she is trying to make.
> 
> :headscratch:


 

Every time someone gets caught fornicating (baby) they try to justify it, with at least I didn't have an abortion or the 'innocence' of the child.  I find it baffling, just admit to your wrong doing, repent and keep it moving.


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Feb 5, 2014)

I don't believe in the, we fall down we get up thing, if we want to be real many sometimes we put ourselves in situations (cause we want to) that can be avoided.


----------



## Cheleigh (Feb 5, 2014)

She's right in that having an out-of-wedlock child is not a sin. It is a by-product (a consequence) of sinful actions/sin. It is a visible manifestation of your sin. And people have a right to state their opinions about your sin, as you have a tangible by-product of it and can't really deny it. Now, tis true that many of those people casting aspurgions are hypocrites, but being a hypocrite doesn't mean that you are wrong about something. It just means that you're sinning too and not owning up to your own sin. 

Sometimes the best course is to stay silent and ignore naysayers. If you've asked for forgiveness from Jesus/God for your actions/sin, then you've been forgiven, but sometimes we have to endure the public and private reprecussions of our actions for years to come. I have made plenty of mistakes, committed many sins, and some of them haunt me everyday. Just because I was forgiven of my sins and just because some of them weren't public doesn't mean that the consequences aren't felt. Her barking out statements about people being "dumb" is akin to people behaving any way that want and then barking "only God can judge me."  Don't want to do the time? Don't do the crime.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 5, 2014)

Long post alert...sorry about that:

Probably something behind the scenes as well that is being repeated over and over again for her to answer to.  I comprehend her.  She's already dealt with the fact she had pre-marital sex.  It's not up to anyone to question her.  We repent and go to reconciliation.  That's it.  You live again and you get right back up if you've fallen.  

One thing I do not like about this culture here is the fact that people turn up their noses at the children, even the mother.  It's wrong and unloving.  No child is at fault.  Just like that pastor who didn't want to openly bless a child because s/he was born oow, so it is with people constantly attempting to remind you of your sin.  What is done is done.  The very people judging are the ones hiding something they think no one else will ever see brought to light.  She vented...maybe people ought have compassion?  That's what I got from her post.

-------------------

I wish I had seen this first.  Everything about Jesus' life is symbolic,  esp. his cruxifixion.  How many times did he fall and get up again?   Did he receive compassion on the way?  Veronica?  Cyrenaeus helped him  carry the cross?  Jeers for this open "sinner" against G-d vs. the many  tears shed for his innocence?  Jesus reminds us to not judge others in a certain way.   Seeing a sin and  teaching your children to be wise is one thing in light of such a  situation.  But pointing to that person over and over again (gospel  artist and those in her circle and even fan base), imho,  lacks  compassion.  It's as though she has scarlet clothing, forever.  

There  is a girl in our circle who has had a child oow at 17.  She knows what  she and her boyfriend have done.  She's pregnant with oow baby no. 2.   We attended her shower and loved her.  We don't have to tell her she's  wrong, she knows that, being a catholic.  Her parents have told her.  We  don't have to allow our kids to hang with her on a regular basis and  that has been our kids' choice, primarily, since they are furthering their education.  But they have not said one word to her  about it in correction.  They haven't looked at her as if she's dirty.   They love her and gave her 2 baby showers.  

-----------------------------------------

There was a time at Mass that Father asked people to pray for the widowed and for those who have never known their fathers.   The person beside me had already tried to spy where my wedding ring was since there was no husband by my side and I know this  because I caught her looking at my hands and then she slightly turned her nose up at me.  But when Father said the bit about those never knowing their fathers, she (with her previous haught) and two other "compassionates"  looked right at us at that very moment.  I mean, they turned around 180 and Snooty to her right and looked at us.  I was furious but was at Mass.  What to do?  Endure ignorance and arrogance.

This type of judging hurts people.  If someone loving attends to the spiritual needs of someone in private who is sinning, that is one thing, but to assume.    Scarlet, which they assume they have the right to point out, over and over again.  They simply don't even know me to make such assumptions.  These others only know she  (gospel singer) had sex outside marriage...that's enough.  Let it go.


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Feb 5, 2014)

Iwanthealthyhair67 said:


> Every time someone gets caught fornicating (baby) they try to justify it, with at least I didn't have an abortion or the 'innocence' of the child. I find it baffling, just admit to your wrong doing, repent and keep it moving.


 


*I also apologize for the length of my post*

I don’t want to sound flippant by my response, I know that God is grieved when we sin and we should be too. What concerns me is the lack of grief, regret or remorse which is very common in Christians in the entertainment world. I’m not asking anyone to dress in sack cloth and throw ash on themselves while walking through the streets but I can tell by the response that there is no remorse… 

Even when Nathan went to David, David acknowledge his sin against God, but God took away his sin and this is what I meant by repent and keep it moving.

The first reaction to people (your fan base/followers) opinions (good or bad) is always one of offense, especially in these kind of circumstances when the sin is exposed because it resulted in a child.

The bible says when we are drawn away by our own lusts we sin, James 1:14 when lust it conceived it gives birth to sin and when sin is accomplished it brings death…we cant expect to put ourselves in harms way and not go unscathed. Because her sin resulted in a baby and because the child is supposedly ‘innocent’ that does not make it right.

I don't know if she is just a singer or a Christian singer but whether we believe or not what we do does influence others, how did she impact her baby daddy spiritually or anyone else for that matter besides being a stumbling block.

JB's post reminded me about all that Jesus endured and did not utter not ONE word, didn't try to defend himself and He wasn't wrong...but we have to sound the alarm always wanting to tell it loudly on the mountain and over the hills and defend what we know is wrong.


To the young woman who is on a 2nd, 3rd 'mistake' when will she learn when will those around her give rebuke. LOVE rebukes.


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Feb 5, 2014)

She's repented? Hmmm, true repentance brings humility. She sounds mighty lifted up in pride about what she's done to me responding this way.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 5, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> Long post alert...sorry about that:
> 
> Probably something behind the scenes as well that is being repeated over and over again for her to answer to.  I comprehend her.  She's already dealt with the fact she had pre-marital sex.  It's not up to anyone to question her.  We repent and go to reconciliation.  That's it.  You live again and you get right back up if you've fallen.
> 
> ...



on point. Every syllable.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 5, 2014)

MrsHaseeb said:


> She's repented? Hmmm, true repentance brings humility. She sounds mighty lifted up in pride about what she's done to me responding this way.



she sounds frustrated and over the criticism.


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Feb 5, 2014)

Sin in the church has become such a norm that we are literally expected to just shut up about it since that person knows its wrong. The Bible disagrees with that. When you're in the public, you're going to get criticism but if you're truly broken/repentant you will humble yourself. Sin, especially sexual sin, is a lifestyle for many church folk/professing Christians. Instead of us mourning and being sorry at the state of things we make excuses. Those who say something are told to be quiet and stop judging since that person knows their sin already, just pray about it.... See I see a bunch of folk (not just here, I mean this in general) who are religious but lack the heart of Christ to be grieved by this. I am reminded of 1Corinthians 5. Paul told the assembly to put away the fornicator from among them (yet love him) so that he'd repent. The reason people are not repenting and are having false conversions is because many church folk just keep quiet about it and never say anything, never correct these people in a Biblical way yet these people are perishing because we don't follow the example of Scripture. Apparently, as with any case like this, there are hypocritical people not judging righteously. But I get the impression that most of these people don't want correction period. They want to do what they want with no accountability to the body of Christ. Well as a body, the real body of Christ does not function that way because we are one in Him. And Christ is holy. So I'm not buying her supposed repentance. The word says bring forth fruit meet for repentance, which she is not doing.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 5, 2014)

The only thing that I get from this is that the 'Child' is not at fault for the sins of the parents.  

She made a mistake and is taking responsibility for it. Even more, she loves her baby and chose to keep him/her.

It sounds like someone (or several) people hurt her, deeply.  Her message is, _don't hurt my baby.  He/she has done you no harm.  Don't hurt my baby for my sin._


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 5, 2014)

MrsHaseeb said:


> Sin in the church has become such a norm that we are literally expected to just shut up about it since that person knows its wrong. The Bible disagrees with that. When you're in the public, you're going to get criticism but if you're truly broken/repentant you will humble yourself. Sin, especially sexual sin, is a lifestyle for many church folk/professing Christians. Instead of us mourning and being sorry at the state of things we make excuses. Those who say something are told to be quiet and stop judging since that person knows their sin already, just pray about it.... See I see a bunch of folk (not just here, I mean this in general) who are religious but lack the heart of Christ to be grieved by this. I am reminded of 1Corinthians 5. Paul told the assembly to put away the fornicator from among them (yet love him) so that he'd repent. The reason people are not repenting and are having false conversions is because many church folk just keep quiet about it and never say anything, never correct these people in a Biblical way yet these people are perishing because we don't follow the example of Scripture. Apparently, as with any case like this, there are hypocritical people not judging righteously. But I get the impression that most of these people don't want correction period. They want to do what they want with no accountability to the body of Christ. Well as a body, the real body of Christ does not function that way because we are one in Him. And Christ is holy. So I'm not buying her supposed repentance. The word says bring forth fruit meet for repentance, which she is not doing.


 What does repentance "look" like? The child looks about six months. Pregnancy is 40 weeks (10 months). So at the very least it's been about a year and a half.  How long is she supposed to beat up herself about something that happened at least 1.5 years ago? I think Christians (sometimes) get too caught up in relishing in other people's sins.  It's counterproductive.  You alienate others that you could be witnessing to, while discouraging the person who has repented and is trying to grow in Christ. Talk about getting in your own way.


----------



## Laela (Feb 5, 2014)

Exactly. How long? Don't you think she's continuing to do so in her Instagram  vent by drawing the attention to it? I just don't get it either. She's repented, so this should be a non-issue for her at this point. But then again, maybe not.
Focusing on her "haters" does more harm than good.

All I know is her baby is adorable...




Kurlee said:


> What does repentance "look" like? The child looks about six months. Pregnancy is 40 weeks (10 months). So at the very least it's been about a year and a half.  *How long is she supposed to beat up herself about something that happened at least 1.5 years ago? *I think Christians (sometimes) get too caught up in relishing in other people's sins.  It's counterproductive.  You alienate others that you could be witnessing to, while discouraging the person who has repented and is trying to grow in Christ. Talk about getting in your own way.





Kurlee said:


> she sounds frustrated and over the criticism.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 5, 2014)

Laela said:


> Exactly. How long? Don't you think she's continuing to do so in her Instagram  vent by drawing the attention to it? I just don't get it either. She's repented, so this should be a non-issue for her at this point. But then again, maybe not.
> Focusing on her "haters" does more harm than good.
> 
> All I know is her baby is adorable...



Agreed. But how can she move on, if people keep reminding her of her sin and keep criticizing her about it? The child will be here until the day she dies, so unless people intend on her being "sorry" and humble for the next 60 years . . .  what is she really supposed to do except be the best mother she can be and learn from her sin?  *shrugs*

She seems too through.  You can't move on from any issue if people keep rubbing it in your face.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 5, 2014)

Kurlee said:


> Agreed. But how can she move on, if people keep reminding her of her sin and keep criticizing her about it? The child will be here until the day she dies, so unless people intend on her being "sorry" and humble for the next 60 years . . . what is she really supposed to do except be the best mother she can be and learn from her sin? *shrugs*
> 
> She seems too through. You can't move on from any issue if people keep rubbing it in your face.


 
She is definitely too through.      I feel badly for her.  While we don't want to downplay the seriousness of sex outside of Marriage and OOW babies, I can't help but feel this woman's broken heart.   She's not happy that she sinned and she's not making excuses for it.   That speaks a lot about her and that she has truly repented.    

I'm thinking of three women in the Bible that Jesus forgave for sexual sin...they were each so grateful and repentant, they truly had a change of heart and they _'went and sinned no more'._


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 5, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> She is definitely too through.  I feel badly for her. While we don't want to downplay the seriousness of sex outside of Marriage and having_ babies outside of marriage_, I can't help but feel this woman's broken heart. She's not happy that she sinned and she's not making excuses for it. That speaks a lot about her and that she has truly repented.
> 
> I'm thinking of three women in the Bible that Jesus forgave for sexual sin...they were each so grateful and repentant, they truly had a change of heart and they _'went and sinned no more'._


 
I had to change my original post from labeling a baby as OOW.  I repent of that.  The children are innocent.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 6, 2014)

Fornicators in biblical times were people who were going to the various sex shops under Roman rule.  These included open sex with boys, men, female and male prostitutes that worked these shops.  Of course, women were killed for adultery in those days and girls that had either been raped or willingly lost their virginity by being conned by some boy were also put out of the family or shamed forever in some way.  Jesus provided the example for the adulterer.  As far as those publicly visiting those rampant sex shoppes on every corner and indulging in Romanesque behaviors which contradicted the biblical moral code, they were to be equally shamed in public if they confessed Jesus as Messiah. 

 As fornication refers not just to the physical body and not just to the unmarried, married can commit it when they utilize their burning passion or sexual energy in a wrong way, to harm physically, emotionally, spiritually etc.  Jesus, by Joseph not putting away Mary, and by freeing the adulterous, is placing high emphasis on the marital union and perhaps, for those who were conceived oow.


----------



## TraciChanel (Feb 6, 2014)

Kurlee said:


> What does repentance "look" like? The child looks about six months. Pregnancy is 40 weeks (10 months). So at the very least it's been about a year and a half.  How long is she supposed to beat up herself about something that happened at least 1.5 years ago? *I think Christians (sometimes) get too caught up in relishing in other people's sins.*  It's counterproductive.  You alienate others that you could be witnessing to, while discouraging the person who has repented and is trying to grow in Christ. Talk about getting in your own way.



 to the bolded. 
The comments and OP brought up some memories. When I was about 15 years old, a good friend of mine who was 18 at the time and attended the same church as me got pregnant OOW. I remember to this day how cruel she was treated, by the adults in our church. As she got further along in her pregnancy, she got stares (so much so, people could hardly pay attention in church). People ruthlessly gossiped about her behind her back, tried to get inside information from me and other people close to her about her "situation", even advised me to cut off our friendship and spoke to my mom about not letting me remain friends with her. All of this was from adults in the church, old enough to be her mom or dad (some older). At the time, I felt it was wrong - the way she was being treated, but I didn't feel as if I had the right to speak up about it, because I was just a kid myself. My mom didn't tell me to stop being friends with her, and she embraced my friend and encouraged her to keep her head up and keep going. Also, the young man who got her pregnant, attended the same church, and none of the rebuke or cruelty fell on him. 

I know the OP wasn't about teen pregnancy, but the situation is still a bit similar. The onus always falls on the woman, unfortunately. I'm glad that my friend kept going and ignored all of the people who tried to tear her down. She got married a year later and her son is growing up to be a GREAT young man. She didn't do well because of the rebuke she got from the people in church, but in spite of it, and due to the support she received from her family and friends. No one made her feel like what got her into the situation of being pregnant OOW (fornication) was the right thing to do. Not at all. But no one in her support system made her feel like a failure, or less than, either. Only God can read our hearts. If we sin (any sin), we need to sincerely repent to God our Heavenly Father and ask for His forgiveness. IMHO, our relationship with God and how He views us is far more important than what other people think about us, or perceive us to be because of our past mistakes.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> Fornicators in biblical times were people who were going to the various sex shops under Roman rule. These included open sex with boys, men, female and male prostitutes that worked these shops. Of course, women were killed for adultery in those days and girls that had either been raped or willingly lost their virginity by being conned by some boy were also put out of the family or shamed forever in some way. Jesus provided the example for the adulterer. As far as those publicly visiting those rampant sex shoppes on every corner and indulging in Romanesque behaviors which contradicted the biblical moral code, they were to be equally shamed in public if they confessed Jesus as Messiah.
> 
> *As fornication refers not just to the physical body and not just to the unmarried, married can commit it when they utilize their burning passion or sexual energy in a wrong way, to harm physically, emotionally, spiritually etc.*
> 
> Jesus, by Joseph not putting away Mary, and by freeing the adulterous, is placing high emphasis on the marital union and perhaps, for those who were conceived oow.


 
This is true and I'm glad you shared this.  The Bible is clear on how a husband must treat his wife, which is tenderly and with love.   Sexual abuse in marriage is definitely 'fornication', for it is not within the love of marriage.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

TraciChanel said:


> to the bolded.
> The comments and OP brought up some memories. When I was about 15 years old, a good friend of mine who was 18 at the time and attended the same church as me got pregnant OOW. I remember to this day how cruel she was treated, by the adults in our church. As she got further along in her pregnancy, she got stares (so much so, people could hardly pay attention in church).
> 
> *People ruthlessly gossiped about her behind her back, tried to get inside information from me and other people close to her about her "situation", even advised me to cut off our friendship and spoke to my mom about not letting me remain friends with her. All of this was from adults in the church, old enough to be her mom or dad (some older). *
> ...


 
TraciChanel, I cried reading this post.  I don't even know your friend, but yet I cried and I felt like I were her. 

While I am not condoning sex outside of marriage, I just cannot imagine how sad and heartbreaking it was for your friend to have to face this horrid treatment from those church members.   The bolded just did me in.

Can you tell your friend something for me?    Please tell her that she is an amazing and strong woman.   She continued to serve God in the midst of all of the firey darts and swords and daggers against her.   She continued, she prevailed and she is indeed a woman of honor.    

Personally, I can promise you that I am not up on a 'high horse', but I would have left that Church, yet your friend stayed and I have to give her recognition for that.   Please give her a great big hug and that I said thank you for being so strong in such a harsh environment.   

Traci, I'm so glad that you were there for her.   You didn't have to speak up, you were there and that indeed helped to stay strong.   God bless you. 

For your friend and her precious child whom she chose to love and carry in the midst of such a painful storm.


----------



## TraciChanel (Feb 6, 2014)

Aww..thank You so much Shimmie. I will definitely tell her what you said. That will make her day  

And yes, I totally agree about not condoning sex before marriage. 

My friend made a mistake in her youth, but she repented and didn't turn away from God and she is truly blessed. They have a beautiful family now (she had another son after they married). 



Shimmie said:


> TraciChanel, I cried reading this post.  I don't even know your friend, but yet I cried and I felt like I were her.  While I am not condoning sex outside of marriage, I just cannot imagine how sad and heartbreaking it was for your friend to have to face this horrid treatment from those church members.   The bolded just did me in.  Can you tell your friend something for me?    Please tell her that she is an amazing and strong woman.   She continued to serve God in the midst of all of the firey darts and swords and daggers against her.   She continued, she prevailed and she is indeed a woman of honor.  Personally, I can promise you that I am not up on a 'high horse', but I would have left that Church, yet your friend stayed and I have to give her recognition for that.   Please give her a great big hug and that I said thank you for being so strong in such a harsh environment.  Traci, I'm so glad that you were there for her.   You didn't have to speak up, you were there and that indeed helped to stay strong.   God bless you.  For your friend and her precious child whom she chose to love and carry in the midst of such a painful storm.



Sent from my iPhone using LHCF


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 6, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> This is true and I'm glad you shared this.  The Bible is clear on how a husband must treat his wife, which is tenderly and with love.   Sexual abuse in marriage is definitely 'fornication', for it is not within the love of marriage.




I never even thought of it that way.  Great observation!  What I was thinking about was expending that sexual energy in a way that was not h-ly and I guess it somewhat means via orgasm outside the physical union - the mind, lust etc.  In judaism, pre-marital sex is not the ideal but it is not punished as it is in christianity - yet, christians come via the Jews.  The term refers to so much more.  If people thought of the various ways a man treats a woman with unh-ly intent (her future, the child's?), maybe they would blame them more.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

TraciChanel said:


> Aww..thank You so much Shimmie. I will definitely tell her what you said. That will make her day
> 
> And yes, I totally agree about not condoning sex before marriage.
> 
> ...


 
I wish her all of the best; Blessings to her Hubby for being her 'Hubby'.   I love men who choose to marry.  They're showing respect for women.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> I never even thought of it that way. Great observation! What I was thinking about was expending that sexual energy in a way that was not h-ly and I guess it somewhat means via orgasm outside the physical union - the mind, lust etc.
> 
> *In judaism, pre-marital sex is not the ideal but it is not punished as it is in christianity - yet, christians come via the Jews.*
> 
> The term refers to so much more. If people thought of the various ways a man treats a woman with unh-ly intent (her future, the child's?), maybe they would blame them more.


 
JaneBond... What about the Jewish laws in the Old Testament?     Sex outside of marriage was punishable back then. How did they get away from that?


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 6, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> JaneBond... What about the Jewish laws in the Old Testament?     Sex outside of marriage was punishable back then. How did they get away from that?




People would be surprised as to what the writings actually say about pre-marital sex.  Obviously, marital sex is the ideal but the Torah actually doesn't mention pre-marital sex overtly.  Adultery was punishable, beastiality and other perversions but not pre-marital sex (right at this moment, I'm trying hard to figure out if I'm going to be Jewish or christian come Shabbat ).  Now, culturally, pre-marital sex went on enough for it to be regulated.  Much of our fear of pre-marital sex is culturally mandated in the world.  But you know, in thinking of Mary, it didn't say that Joseph was going to have her killed.  He was a righteous man (meaning???...compassionate? I dunno.) and as not willing to have her publicly humiliated but why?  They were engaged/bethrothed?  They were already in the first step of marriage.  I'm not sure if it would have been considered adultery or not.  Evidently, they could break off this portion of the betrothal and move on.  

Matthew 1:19 BBE Bible in Basic English
                     And Joseph, her husband, being an upright  man, and not desiring to make her a public example, had a mind to put  her away privately.

Matthew 1:19 CJB Complete Jewish Bible
                     Her husband-to-be, Yosef, was a man who did  what was right; so he made plans to break the engagement quietly, rather  than put her to public shame.

Why it's a mortal sin in catholicism is my question.  Maybe St. Paul was elevating marriage?  At some point, whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven?  I do believe in marital values, don't get me wrong.  But there are many questions about it as well, based upon history and what the faith has evolved from.  Here's something sort of an informal exegesis from an orthodox christian point of view (Disclaimer:  if you are weak of heart, please don't read these, avoid them.  I am not going to be held responsible for weakening your faith.  ):

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=35214.885;imode

And this one:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality/Premarital_Sex.shtml


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> People would be surprised as to what the writings actually say about pre-marital sex. Obviously, marital sex is the ideal but the Torah actually doesn't mention pre-marital sex overtly. Adultery was punishable, beastiality and other perversions but not pre-marital sex (right at this moment, I'm trying hard to figure out if I'm going to be Jewish or christian come Shabbat ). Now, culturally, pre-marital sex went on enough for it to be regulated. Much of our fear of pre-marital sex is culturally mandated in the world. But you know, in thinking of Mary, it didn't say that Joseph was going to have her killed. He was a righteous man (meaning???...compassionate? I dunno.) and as not willing to have her publicly humiliated but why? They were engaged/bethrothed? They were already in the first step of marriage. I'm not sure if it would have been considered adultery or not. Evidently, they could break off this portion of the betrothal and move on.
> 
> Matthew 1:19 BBE Bible in Basic English
> And Joseph, her husband, being an upright man, and not desiring to make her a public example, had a mind to put her away privately.
> ...


 
Welp!  

Seriously, something has been taken out of context. Just because the Torah didn't mention 'pre-marital' sex, it does emphasize Marriage and sex is only mentioned within the context of Marriage and never mentioned outside of Marriage. Which concludes that sex is for Marriage only and between a man and a woman. 

Further meaning that it is clearly understood that sex before marriage is not permissible. 

Disclaimer: This comment is not towards you. Again, this comment is not towards you.  I need to make this perfectly clear, Jane, the following comment is not about you. Am I clear? 

Okay, here's my comment:

_Folks stay tryin' to make something out of what something is not, just because the Bible did not make a specific mention of a particular word or term. Example: gay marriage. According to the gays and their supporters, because Jesus did not speak against gay marriage, it means that he validated it. That 'reach' is so long that they're falling overboard into the murky waters with the sharks. _

_I just sayin'...._

_Folks be steady tryin' and reachin' for stuff that's not even there just to validate their sin. _

Joseph and Mary were engaged; had they been married she would not been a Virgin in the sense of never haven been touched (never have had intercourse) outside nor inside of Marriage. The Word of God is clear that Mary was indeed a Virgin. Therefore premarital sex was indeed a sin in the eyes of God or He would not have chosen _her womb_ to carry His Son. 

The 'name' Wife was always associated with sex... 'he knew his wife.. etc. 

I was to share more but I'm at my desk... 

@Iwanthealthyhair67, @MrsHaseeb, @Laela, 

Help...   Please. 

I do not see where pre-maritial sex was not considered a sin in the Old Testament. It was always a sin. God designed sex to be between marriage only.


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Feb 6, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> Welp!
> 
> Seriously, something has been taken out of context. Just because the Torah didn't mention 'pre-marital' sex, it does emphasize Marriage and sex is only mentioned within the context of Marriage and never mentioned outside of Marriage. Which concludes that sex is for Marriage only and between a man and a woman.
> 
> ...



All one needs to do is look around at society and see the destruction premarital sex had caused. I'd call that God's judgment and partially a lack of education, sometimes lack of education in church. STDs, fatherless youth (especially the black youth), hurt angry women becoming lesbians, etc. The only person who could try to justify fornication is one who has no understanding of God's nature nor His original design. But we are under the new covenant where we have access to the Holy Spirit to empower us to live like Christ and the new testament IS NOT silent about the matter. The Bible reveals God's nature, so if it's a sin now, why would God have ignored it then? Views like that really irk me. That's all some weak minded believer needs to read to end up in fornication.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 6, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> Welp!
> 
> Seriously, something has been taken out of context. Just because the Torah didn't mention 'pre-marital' sex, it does emphasize Marriage and sex is only mentioned within the context of Marriage and never mentioned outside of Marriage. Which concludes that sex is for Marriage only and between a man and a woman.
> 
> ...




I don't know that that's entirely true, though.    "Help!!"  I know, right?   Yes, Mary was a Virgin, but "married" in the sense that the ketuba was signed, or something to that effect.  Or did the ketuba come later?  I dunno.  They were in a state of engagement leading to marriage but she was definitely set apart for Joseph.   I'm asking a trusted orthodox  scholar right now and will relay what he says on the permissibility of premarital sex.  He's very, very thorough and so, I'll just paste and copy the whole thing.  I know it's gonna be verbose!  

Now, regarding the sin, again, it was mostly cultural and evidently, they had a problem with it.  Concubinage wasn't banned.  A man could have more than one wife.  I'm assuming that around the time of St. Paul, monogamy was mostly the norm.  In one of the articles, it raises a point that premarital sex was occurring to the extent that they culturally addressed it, long before Jesus.  But it's not specifically prohibited.  I think a key to (my) understanding it would be the symbolism of the "furnace" mentioned all through scripture as it evidently has a very significant presence throughout scripture.  I want to know the levels of meaning of that, sexual energy in regards to how it regulates our relationship with G-d (life force, creation etc.) and why the church deemed it necessary to prohibit it.  Lastly, I want to know the specific time that orthodoxy in judaism prohibited it.

Um, that was a joke about wondering if I'm going to be Jewish or christian come Friday evening.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

MrsHaseeb said:


> All one needs to do is look around at society and see the destruction premarital sex had caused. I'd call that God's judgment and partially a lack of education, sometimes lack of education in church. STDs, fatherless youth (especially the black youth), hurt angry women becoming lesbians, etc.
> 
> The only person who could try to justify fornication is one who has no understanding of God's nature nor His original design. But we are under the new covenant where we have access to the Holy Spirit to empower us to live like Christ and the new testament IS NOT silent about the matter. The Bible reveals God's nature, so if it's a sin now, why would God have ignored it then? Views like that really irk me. That's all some weak minded believer needs to read to end up in fornication.


 
But isn't the Old Testament clear about premarital sex being a sin... ?


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 6, 2014)

MrsHaseeb said:


> All one needs to do is look around at society and see the destruction premarital sex had caused. I'd call that God's judgment and partially a lack of education, sometimes lack of education in church. STDs, fatherless youth (especially the black youth), hurt angry women becoming lesbians, etc. The only person who could try to justify fornication is one who has no understanding of God's nature nor His original design. But we are under the new covenant where we have access to the Holy Spirit to empower us to live like Christ and the new testament IS NOT silent about the matter. The Bible reveals God's nature, so if it's a sin now, why would God have ignored it then? Views like that really irk me. That's all some weak minded believer needs to read to end up in fornication.




I'm just talking about the legality or illegality of it as it regards scripture and implicitly so.  I'm not at all promoting it (my children were conceived and born in a state of marriage).



Shimmie said:


> But isn't the Old Testament clear about premarital sex being a sin... ?



You know, I often wondered about the Puritans.  Biologically, I understand completely about them shacking until a child was born to secure viability of a family union.  Religiously?  Wouldn't they have trusted G-d?


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Feb 6, 2014)

lemme see if I get this right, being alone with an unmarried woman is wrong, touching her is wrong however, having sex with her is not...oh my, sounds more like bending over backward not reaching.


This reminds me of the shacking up question, does the bible say no 'shacking' before marriage...

I didn't read the attachment in it's entirety but it sounds like just another way to justify sin.


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Feb 6, 2014)

the bible covers sexual immorality, sex before marriage falls under sexual immorality


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 6, 2014)

^^^I think what they are saying is that there is no implicit evidence of the Torah saying that it, in specific, is wrong.  And I think it raises many other questions about why it was not.  There certainly were some sexual acts considered under sexual immorality and this is the question - why "premarital sex" was not specifically mentioned and if we have come to prohibit it based upon culture. Mind you, I'm talking about stemming from thousands of years.  Why was it not specified?  In a bad analogy, this is like the dinosaur thing versus 6,000 years of creationism.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> I'm just talking about the legality or illegality of it as it regards scripture and implicitly so. I'm not at all promoting it (my children were conceived and born in a state of marriage).
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I often wondered about the Puritans. Biologically, I understand completely about them shacking until a child was born to secure viability of a family union. Religiously? Wouldn't they have trusted G-d?


 
  Jane, you're making me


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

Iwanthealthyhair67 said:


> lemme see if I get this right, being alone with an unmarried woman is wrong, touching her is wrong however, having sex with her is not...oh my, sounds more like bending over backward not reaching.
> 
> 
> This reminds me of the shacking up question, does the bible say no 'shacking' before marriage...
> ...


 
O' my goodness... I forgot about the 'shacking up' thread.    That thread was a mess... 

See that's what I'm saying.    Shacking up is still sexual sin, cause folks be shackin'.  erplexed  It's still under the category of fornication.  

The Old Testament speaks clearly about 'defiling a woman's virtue, and the penalty that is paid to the woman's father as she has been ruined for marriage.   

And I want to be clear again, that my comments are not against 'JB' (Janebond)      I'm definitely speaking upon the sin of sex outside of marriage. 

JaneBond007.  Do you hear me loud and clear?  My comments are not against you.   You've shared something that needed to be addressed; something other folks may have wondered about or tried to use it to validate pre-marital sex.


----------



## Kurlee (Feb 6, 2014)

loving the convo and thanks for expanding fornication


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

Kurlee said:


> loving the convo and thanks for expanding fornication



 Kurlee 

That's all I got is  Kurlee. 

I wasn't expecting this


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 6, 2014)

I've got a little tidbit.  Then, if you slept with someone who wasn't married, then you instantly married that person.  That might be the cultural basis for it?  I'm still awaiting a scholar to answer that question for me.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 6, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> And I want to be clear again, that my comments are not against 'JB' (Janebond)      I'm definitely speaking upon the sin of sex outside of marriage.
> 
> @JaneBond007.  Do you hear me loud and clear?  My comments are not against you.   You've shared something that needed to be addressed; something other folks may have wondered about or tried to use it to validate pre-marital sex.




Don't worry, mine is a theological question as to why it was not separately singled out like other sexual sin.


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Feb 6, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> I'm just talking about the legality or illegality of it as it regards scripture and implicitly so.  I'm not at all promoting it (my children were conceived and born in a state of marriage).
> 
> You know, I often wondered about the Puritans.  Biologically, I understand completely about them shacking until a child was born to secure viability of a family union.  Religiously?  Wouldn't they have trusted G-d?



I know you're not promoting it   my comments were not directed to you but to the fact that people try to use the old testament to justify fornication.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 6, 2014)

I haven't actually seen people attempting to justify it, if not, to explain why it wasn't explicitly expressed in the OT.  I've been saying "not implicitly"...it's my meds eating my language up today.  LOL.  I mean explicit reference.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> I haven't actually seen people attempting to justify it, if not, to explain why it was implicitly expressed in the OT. I've been saying "not implicitly"...it's my meds eating my language up today. LOL. I mean explicit reference.


 
Kurlee, Iwanthealthyhair67, MrsHaseeb, Laela, JaneBond007

Jane had me 'clutching my pearls' big time...    

You all know my tolerance level is nil to nothing....


----------



## MrsHaseeb (Feb 6, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> But isn't the Old Testament clear about premarital sex being a sin... ?



I thought that if they committed fornication they had to marry. If they were already married then it was adultery and the sentence was death. I suppose fornication was not discussed much was due to the fact that they had to marry. That was grace even in the old covenant.


----------



## Laela (Feb 6, 2014)

My thing is, people will always talk, criticize, etc..for as long as we live; who is really in control of how we feel? I'm including myself.. On a spiritual level, the "reminders" come from the devil..he just uses people to do it.

I sympathize with her to an extent and hopefully this was just a vent and not something she carries for the rest of her life because she's not the first person to have a child OOW.  We all carry our pain differently and at our own pace; I  believe she and her beautiful child will be just fine.





Kurlee said:


> Agreed. But how can she move on,* if people keep reminding her of her sin and keep criticizing her about it? *The child will be here until the day she dies, so unless people intend on her being "sorry" and humble for the next 60 years . . .  what is she really supposed to do except be the best mother she can be and learn from her sin?  *shrugs*
> 
> She seems too through.  You can't move on from any issue if people keep rubbing it in your face.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 6, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> @Kurlee, @Iwanthealthyhair67, @MrsHaseeb, @Laela, @JaneBond007
> 
> Jane had me 'clutching my pearls' big time...
> 
> You all know my tolerance level is nil to nothing....




I got a few questions but it's not explicitly mentioned...however, by presumption, there are some answers on from orthodoxy.  I can't send them in right now and will wait until tomorrow, unless I can get back to this computer later this evening.  People ask me all sorts of things and if I'm not prepared, well...what to say?  "Dunno."


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

MrsHaseeb said:


> I thought that if they committed fornication they had to marry. If they were already married then it was adultery and the sentence was death. I suppose fornication was not discussed much was due to the fact that they had to marry. That was grace even in the old covenant.


 
They did   You are correct MrsHaseeb    I have to pull up the scriptures to back this up.    It was basically a 'shot-gun' wedding.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

Shimmie said:


> @Kurlee, @Iwanthealthyhair67, @MrsHaseeb, @Laela, @JaneBond007
> 
> Jane had me 'clutching my pearls' big time...
> 
> You all know my tolerance level is nil to nothing....


 
I got my 'Pearls' back... 

*Exodus 22:16-17* 

_“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins."_


*Deuteronomy 22:13-21~* 

_If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. _

_The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." _

_Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given *an Israelite Virgin a bad name.* _

_She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. _

_*She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous* while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. _

--------------

Okay, bottom line, Here it is in God's Word that Pre-marital sex was also forbidden in the Old Testament. 

Thank God for Jesus for His Grace over us all.


----------



## Laela (Feb 6, 2014)

^^Amein, Amein and Amein!


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 6, 2014)

Laela said:


> ^^Amein, Amein and Amein!


 
Amein...  and Amein!  

I knew the scriptures.  I better had with all of those years of Bible Study   But I was at work and then I was typing from my phone.   I had to come home and pull them up.  

But there's more as these came from the 'Laws of Moses'.   I have to research the book of Numbers and Leviticus as well.   

There was always a law against pre-marital sex in the Old Testament.  It originated with Adam and Eve whom God joined together as man and wife. 

*Adam prophesied God's intent of Marriage:* 

_"So shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and whom God hath joined together no man can put asunder."_


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 7, 2014)

Deut. 22
I think it's culturally based but when G-d handed the law, He realized this was something that was important to the people.  If we look at circumcision, Libyans did it long before Egyptians and Hebrews and Chaldeans (Abraham).  It was transformed into something that was culturally important.  So, I get where they are saying it was the result of culture and not *explicitly prohibited*, which it's not - read, "do not have premarital sex."  Here's the thing, it's prohibited by presumption based upon the other prohibitions resulting in punishments.  Virginity was important to the community culturally before the law was handed and was expected.  I'm sure it was rampant and had many social implications.  But for the Jewish perspective, which formed the christian one, here's something further explaining it (and that's what I was looking for) :

_ in Deuteronomy 22: a) sexual relations should be for marital purposes – i.e., to establish or maintain a marriage; b) an unbetrothed, unmarried woman who has a sexual relationship before marriage (and the man who has sexual relationships with her) are not in violation of a severe prohibition on the level of adultery and other major sexual violations listed in Leviticus 18:6-23; it is a violation of the sanctity expected of sexual relations within marriage which can best be corrected after the fact by formalizing a marriage between the parties. 
Since sexual intercourse is one of the three ways by which a man can legally sanctify a marriage, the intention of the parties to the act is crucial. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage with no intent to sanctify a marriage is defined as zenut – fornication. According to Rabbinic sources, God hates zenut (Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin ch. 10, 28d; Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer, parashah 18, p. 335-6; Eichah Rabba 5). However, since intention cannot be easily discerned by anyone other than God, the Rabbis of the Talmud operate under the presumption that a person does not have intercourse for the purpose of zenut, but rather has marital intentions (Gittin 81b; Tosafot there, s.v. Beit Shammai).   Thus a single woman who is known to have engaged in sexual intercourse with a single man to whom she was not married is presumed not to have engaged in an act of zenut (opinion of the Sages in Yebamot 61b as opposed to the opinion of R. Elazar there), unless there is decisive contextual evidence to the contrary. 
Irrespective of intention, a more severe prohibition most likely applies to almost all cases of premarital sex these days. Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18 forbid intercourse with a menstruant woman, stipulating a severe penalty. Talmudic law considers the severe penalty to apply even to an act of intercourse which occurs long after the cessation of the menstrual flow so long as the woman has not immersed herself fully in a mikveh or natural body of water for purification (Shabbat 64b; Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 4:3; Shulhan Arukh YD 197:1, ). Since unmarried women generally do not immerse themselves seven days after their menstrual periods as mitzvah-observant married women do, it must be presumed that any act of premarital sex will violate this severe prohibition. _


_While the prohibitions against premarital sex may not be equal in severity of the legal or moral consequences of violating the prohibition(s) depending on the circumstances, premarital sex is equally forbidden by Jewish Law in all circumstances. 
When faced with the temptation to engage in sex before fully entering marriage, we should seek to emulate the disciplined behavior of Boaz in Ruth 3:13, as understood by the Rabbis (Sifrei Bemidar, Beha’alotekha, pisqa 88). Boaz was sleeping by his grain on the threshing floor when he noticed that a woman was laying by his feet. When Ruth answered Boaz’s inquiry by identifying herself and indicating that she would be willing to marry him in order that he could redeem the estate of her deceased husband and father-in-law, Boaz said, “By the life of Hashem, lie here until morning.” The Rabbis understand Boaz to have made two separate statements, only the second of which was addressed to Ruth. “Since the evil inclination was troubling Boaz all night, telling him, ‘you are unmarried and seeking a wife, and she is unmarried and seeking a husband, and you know that a wife can be acquired through intercourse, get up and have intercourse with her, and she will become your wife,’ and Boaz said (swore) to the evil inclination, ‘By the life of Hashem, I will not touch her,’ and to the woman he said, ‘lie here until morning.”_


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 7, 2014)

Shimmie

Separately as not to get lost in the long post, but someone raised the question of why Israel was referred to as adulterers and fornicators - meaning, lacking in commitment to G-d.  I thought that was an interesting perspective.  If someone still asks me why there is not direct law against it as such as found in others :

Lev. 20:10-21

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 “‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.

19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.


I don't know what my answer would yet be if someone asked me why it was not a direct law.  Maybe, "There's the cliff.  There's not direct law to run off it with no parachute but it is just 'understood' that it's not the thing to do."  Or something to that effect.  I'm going to probably write the author of the article that resulted in my question and response and see what he has to say.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 7, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> @Shimmie
> 
> Separately as not to get lost in the long post, but someone raised the question of why Israel was referred to as adulterers and fornicators - meaning, lacking in commitment to G-d. I thought that was an interesting perspective. If someone still asks me why there is not direct law against it as such as found in others :
> 
> ...


 
JaneBond007, I'm here   I'll promise to come back to read and respond as soon as I can.    I just wanted to acknowledge and thank you for your post.    

It's busy at my desk; so I'll be back when I have lunch.   Okay Angel?


----------



## Iwanthealthyhair67 (Feb 7, 2014)

This scripture taken from Genesis lets us know that sex is for the parameters of marriage and vice versa, which I believe that @Shimmie posted earlier, this was the intent that woman and man should be married before having sex. Gen 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. *In my personal humble opinion* I believe that sex was for the sole purposes of procreation the fact that it is pleasurable is just an added bonus, (the Lord considers all things, amen). 

“One” flesh, I believe that sex is sacred, and should only be between husband and wife the joining together becoming one flesh, so everyone that you/me slept with prior to marriage we became ‘one’ with, (Lord help!) Paul speaks of this in 1 Corinthians being one with a prostitute, surely if we are one with a prostitute then we are one with all our sexual partners. The results of sex prior to marriage is not only having a child but also sickness and disease as @MrsHaseeb touched on in the up thread. 

I don’t know by the word premarital sex is not mentioned specifically or why some other word wasn’t used however, the bible speaks enough about of adultery, fornication and sexual immorality throughout. Though an interesting topic, for the believer sex before marriage should be a non-issue meaning based on what the bible does say. For some we need to still hear/read “Thou Shall Not” to know that this is wrong, I say; let HS guides us into all truth.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 7, 2014)

Iwanthealthyhair67 said:


> This scripture taken from Genesis lets us know that sex is for the parameters of marriage and vice versa, which I believe that @Shimmie posted earlier, this was the intent that woman and man should be married before having sex. Gen 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. *In my personal humble opinion* I believe that sex was for the sole purposes of procreation the fact that it is pleasurable is just an added bonus, (the Lord considers all things, amen).
> 
> “One” flesh, I believe that sex is sacred, and should only be between husband and wife the joining together becoming one flesh, so everyone that you/me slept with prior to marriage we became ‘one’ with, (Lord help!) Paul speaks of this in 1 Corinthians being one with a prostitute, surely if we are one with a prostitute then we are one with all our sexual partners. The results of sex prior to marriage is not only having a child but also sickness and disease as @MrsHaseeb touched on in the up thread.
> 
> I don’t know by the word premarital sex is not mentioned specifically or why some other word wasn’t used however, the bible speaks enough about of adultery, fornication and sexual immorality throughout. Though an interesting topic, for the believer sex before marriage should be a non-issue meaning based on what the bible does say. For some we need to still hear/read “Thou Shall Not” to know that this is wrong, I say; let HS guides us into all truth.


 
@Iwanthealthyhair67...

Thank you for 'Saving my Pearls'... 

You've said it all and much more in your post and there's really nothing more that I can add, other than thanking God for the pure and precious and sacred gift of Marriage... between One Man and One Woman... whom God hath joined together. 

I love all of you, my sisters. Thank you for coming to 'my rescue' and I am sooooo serious about this; Healthy Hair, Laela, MrsHaseeb, Kurlee, TraciChanel... 

And as for you @JaneBond007... 














 Girl, you are dear to my heart. The one thing that you and I will never disagree upon. 

Now.... leave my pearls in one piece. These theories you post are pearl crushers.


----------



## JaneBond007 (Feb 7, 2014)

Iwanthealthyhair67 said:


> For some we need to still hear/read “Thou Shall Not” to know that this is wrong, I say; let HS guides us into all truth.




I don't think that's necessarily true, especially when people are inquisitive and want to know their faith fully.  People can ask the strangest of things and if you don't have a concrete answer, you go searching for it.  Some of us are not afraid to wonder and ask.  Others of us don't want to touch those with a 10 foot pole.  Then there's everyone in-between.

What's funny, someone came in trying to pray for me.  I had to explain to that person 3 separate times that it was not a spiritual problem that prompted the question.  I still think we are so uptight about sex.  Incredible.




			
				Shimmie said:
			
		

> Girl, you are dear to my heart. The one thing that you and I will never disagree upon.
> 
> Now.... leave my pearls in one piece. These theories you post are pearl crushers.



LOL.  Well, they're not meant to be pearl crushers, but to get people to think about it.  If I find something interesting like that, believe I'm going to ask about it.   There are many things in scripture that, for lack of the deeper meanings about them, look like contradictions.  I won't hide my head about them, I go right there.  I've concluded that it was a cultural value (polygamy was exercised and men were allowed to go to a prostitute...but women had to be virgins   ) that G-d preserved and protected for us...and all that has transformed into something much higher and protective of women.  Rather than it just being something natural you fell into (and then visited prostitutes, which was very common then ), it's been transformed to represent Israel and the body of believers with their husband, G-d, like Christ and the church.  The marital relationship has been elevated and made into a sacrament.  In order to protect that sacred thing, behavior had to be such that it didn't disturb the sanctity of the marriage, thus, those prohibitions.


----------



## Shimmie (Feb 7, 2014)

JaneBond007 said:


> _While the prohibitions against premarital sex may not be equal in severity of the legal or moral consequences of violating the prohibition(s) depending on the circumstances, premarital sex is equally forbidden by Jewish Law in all circumstances. _
> 
> _When faced with the temptation to engage in sex before fully entering marriage, we should seek to emulate the disciplined behavior of Boaz in Ruth 3:13, as understood by the Rabbis (Sifrei Bemidar, Beha’alotekha, pisqa 88). _
> 
> ...


 
@JaneBond007...

The bolded above are 'Precious Pearls' to cherish. Thank you so much for posting this about Boaz. He was indeed an honorable man of God. He loved Ruth so much that he treasured her 'virtue' and he was willing to be her 'Kinsman Redeeemer'. 

He honored God's laws. Sexual intimacy is indeed honored between the Husband and Wife and honored by God, Himself who ordained it from His heart for Marriage. 

*Therefore, it is final -- this issue is closed* --- *that pre-marital sex is indeed a sin and not acceptable even in the Jewish law which was and is still God's law. *

Sex is a sacred gift and Marriage between a Man and a Woman is God's evidence of it. A sacred gift which no counterfeit can ever be. 

_"Father God, in the name of Jesus, thank you for the Love that you have placed in Marriage between a Man and Wife to enjoy for life. I pray for all Marriages to bud, blossom and bloom and to endure in spite of the challenges in life. Only you, Father God shall prevail and the enemies of Marriage shall fail."_ 

_In Jesus' Name, I thank you... Always,_

_Amen and Amen _


----------

