Does "pre-marital sex" = fornication?

[Rod Steel]

By the bible's definition, pre-marital sex is indeed fornication.

I'm glad I'm not a Christian.

What do you think??

 

[ms.belair]

I'm glad I'm not a Christian.

I think the road to heaven is paved with man's best intentions, or is that the road to hell? I never could get those straight.

Happy New Years Everyone!

 

[Rod Steel]

and sex is one of the most intimate and important components of a successful relationship.

Agreed - dessert.

 

[BigBlue]

By the bible's definition, pre-marital sex is indeed fornication.

Yup...when I was in university, some thought "fornication" was ANY sex (since premarital sex is SO commonplace)....they were surprised when I told them, "no, when you are married, it's NOT considered fornication anymore"!

 

[athaire]

actually, pre-marital sex with written consent from the king isn't fornication.

fuck = Fornication Under Consent from the King

Is that true?

 

[athaire]

of course it's true, where do you think FUCK came from?

Fornication
Under
Consent from the
King

you didn't know that?

The king used to sell FUCKing licences, to compete with the pope's 'indulgences'

I've never heard that.......French or English kings? Or both? I wonder when it became a swear word?

 

[gravitas]

of course it's true, where do you think FUCK came from?

Fuck you're a meathead

Fuck is an English word which, when used literally as a verb, means "to engage in sexual intercourse". It is generally considered to be an offensive profanity.

It is unclear whether the word has always been considered vulgar, and if not, when it first started to be considered vulgar. Some evidence indicates that in some English-speaking locales it was considered acceptable as late as the 17th century meaning "to strike" or "to penetrate."[1] Other evidence indicates that it may have become vulgar as early as the 16th century in England, although neither set of evidence is inherently contradictory to the other, since many words have multiple connotations.

Fuck is used not only as a verb (transitive and intransitive), but also as a noun, interjection, and, occasionally, as an expletive infix. The etymology of the word is uncertain (see below).


Etymology
Reputable sources such as the Oxford English Dictionary contend the true etymology of fuck is still uncertain but appears to point to an Anglo-Saxon origin.

The first known occurrence, in code, is in a poem composed in a mixture of Latin and English sometime before 1500. The poem, which satirizes the Carmelite friars of Cambridge, England, takes its title, "Flen flyys", from the first words of its opening line, "Flen, flyys, and freris"; that is, "Fleas, flies, and friars". The line that contains fuck reads "Non sunt in coeli, quia gxddbov xxkxzt pg ifmk". Removing the substitution cipher on the phrase "gxddbov xxkxzt pg ifmk" yields "non sunt in coeli, quia fvccant vvivys of heli", which translated means "they are not in heaven because they fuck the wives of Ely" (fvccant is a fake Latin form).[2] The phrase was coded because of its meaning; it is uncertain to what extent the word itself was considered acceptable.

Other possible connections are to Latin futuere (hence the French foutre, the Catalan fotre, the Italian fottere, the Romanian fute, the vulgar peninsular Spanish follar and joder, and the Portuguese foder). However, there is considerable doubt and no clear lineage for these derivations. These roots, even if cognate, are not the original Indo-European word for to copulate; that root is likely *h3yebh-, ("h3" is the H3 laryngeal) which is attested in Sanskrit (yabhati) and the Slavic languages (Russian ебать (yebat'), Polish jebać, Serbian јебати (jebati)), among others: compare Greek "oiphô", and Greek "zephyros" (noun, ref. a Greek belief that the west wind caused pregnancy). However, Wayland Young (who agrees that these words are related) argues that they derive from the Indo-European *bhu- or *bhug-, believed to be the root of "to be", "to grow", and "to build". [Young, 1964]

Spanish follar has a different root; according to Spanish etymologists, the Spanish verb follar"(attested in the 19th century) derives from fuelle ("bellows") from Latin folle(m) < Indo-European *bhel-; ancient Spanish verb folgar (attested in the 15th century) derived from Latin follicare, also ultimately from follem/follis.

A possible etymology is suggested by the fact that the Common Germanic fuk-, by an application of Grimm's law, would have as its most likely Indo-European ancestor *pug-, which appears in Latin and Greek words meaning "fight" and "fist". In early Common Germanic the word was likely used at first as a slang or euphemistic replacement for an older word for intercourse, and then became the usual word for intercourse. Then, fuck has cognates in other Germanic languages, such as Middle Dutch fokken (to thrust, copulate, or to breed), dialectical Norwegian fukka (to copulate), and dialectical Swedish focka (to strike, copulate) and fock (penis).

There is perhaps even an original Celtic derivation; futuere being related to battuere (to strike, to copulate); which may be related to Irish bot and Manx bwoid (penis). The argument is that battuere and futuere (like the Irish and Manx words) comes from the Celtic *bactuere (to pierce), from the root buc- (a point). Or perhaps Latin futuere came from the root fu, Common Indo-European bhu, meaning "be, become" and originally referred to procreation.


False etymologies
One reason that the word fuck is so hard to trace etymologically is that it was used far more extensively in common speech than in easily traceable written forms.

There are several urban-legend false etymologies postulating an acronymic origin for the word. None of these acronyms was ever heard before the 1960s, according to the authoritative lexicographical work, The F-Word, and thus are backronyms. In any event, the word fuck has been in use far too long for some of these supposed origins to be possible.

One such legend holds that the word fuck came from Irish law. If a couple were caught committing adultery, they would be punished "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge In the Nude", with "FUCKIN" written on the stocks above them to denote the crime.

Other explanations for fuck as an acronym for adultery offer alternative wordings, such as "Fornication Under Carnal/Cardinal Knowledge," or "Fornication Under [the] Control/Consent/Command of the King." Variations on this theme include, "Fornication Under the Christian King", "False Use of Carnal Knowledge", "Felonious Use of Carnal Knowledge", "Felonious Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", "Full-On Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", and "Found Under Carnal Knowledge"; and the closely related variant, "Forced Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" — a label supposedly applied to the crime of rape.

In some reports, there are tombstones around English cemeteries that had the word engraved in uppercase letters. These referred to those who were put to death for crimes against the state and the church. These reports have yet to be corroborated since no such tombstone has been identified. Another story is that it was written in the log book as FUCK when people in the military or navy who had homosexual intercourse were being punished.

 

[georgebushmoron]

By the bible's definition, pre-marital sex is indeed fornication.

I'm glad I'm not a Christian.

What do you think??

A literal reading of the Bible is incorrect. For scripture, whether it be Christian, Muslim, or Jew to be understood as a Truth that is true for all time and that is also revealed as time passes, a literal meaning can not work. Furthermore, it is idiocy to think that God speaks in any human tongue where in fact transcribers of scripture have taken an interpretation in human language that best fits the truth communicated by God. This alone should give students of scripture skepticism of any literal interpretation.

To address your question: marriage is a piece of paper. It has no meaning in the spiritual sense - and thus neither in the Biblical sense. Only if it is a spiritual marriage, that is, one that has the consent of God is it then a marriage the Bible could be referring to. And just because a couple decide to pledge their vows in a church does not make it a spiritual one either because it can not automatically force such a consent from the Higher Being. The Bible's reference to marriage is thus a spiritual union. Lastly, fornication is understood as a physical act. A physical act does not necessarily violate a spiritual union.

Most Christians are idiots. Christianity is preached to them with the expectation that they have the maturity of school children, thus everything is black and white (ie: literal). This is why most Christians are spiritually immature, and why they have such narrow understanding of Christ's teachings - and often times, a total misunderstanding. That the masses of Christians call themselves "Christian" is truly a joke.

 

[gravitas]

what do you expect from me?

very little.....sober or drunk

 

[HeMadeMeDoIt]

Most Christians are idiots. Christianity is preached to them with the expectation that they have the maturity of school children, thus everything is black and white (ie: literal). This is why most Christians are spiritually immature, and why they have such narrow understanding of Christ's teachings - and often times, a total misunderstanding. That the masses of Christians call themselves "Christian" is truly a joke.

Thank-god that Christian civilization has you to show us maturity, spirituality and the true meaning of the teachings of Christ! Thank-you O' mighty one and happy new year!

 

[athaire]

Well thanx Gravitas for that.......and I just think your grumpy.........and wouldn't have it any other way. Happy New Year all.

 

[LeBeau]

Happy 2007

I think you can be a Christian and be open minded. Being Christian and spiritual is good. Being Christian and prejudice is bad.

The two greatest commandments, in which is the basis of Christianity is to: 1) Love God with all of your heart, soul and mind; and 2) like it, to love others (neighbors) as yourself.

Unfortunately, some power brokers in the past and present have used Christianity to their own ends. Although I do not belong to any organized religion, I have found being spritual with a belief in and love for God as thoroughly rewarding.

Happy New Year

 

[JustAGuy]

A literal reading of the Bible is incorrect. For scripture, whether it be Christian, Muslim, or Jew to be understood as a Truth that is true for all time and that is also revealed as time passes, a literal meaning can not work. Furthermore, it is idiocy to think that God speaks in any human tongue where in fact transcribers of scripture have taken an interpretation in human language that best fits the truth communicated by God. This alone should give students of scripture skepticism of any literal interpretation.

I had a long and interesting discussion recently with a Jewish friend of mine after watching the movie "Babel". He told me that before man began constructing the Tower of Babel, we all spoke the same pure language or "God's language". Building the Tower of Babel was the third time God got really pissed off at mankind (Garden of Eden being the first, the flood that wiped out all the creatures of the earth except those in Noah's ark being the second) and this time his punishment was to render everyone incapable of speaking "God's language" ever again. I was sufficiently fascinated by the notion that I resolved to see what else I could learn about it while I have two weeks off work in January. Anyway, in response to your assertion that it is idiocy to think that God speaks in any human tongue, GBM, that may not always have been the case. However there's no doubt that the people who transcribed the scriptures were doing it long after the point where a pure single language was spoken and understood by all.

Most Christians are idiots. Christianity is preached to them with the expectation that they have the maturity of school children, thus everything is black and white (ie: literal). This is why most Christians are spiritually immature, and why they have such narrow understanding of Christ's teachings - and often times, a total misunderstanding. That the masses of Christians call themselves "Christian" is truly a joke.

After my mother died in the 90's, I had a long discussion with a neighbor who made the point that every religion has some grain of truth but some are more "advanced" in their understanding, i.e. a bigger grain of truth has been revealed to some. She felt that the tiniest grain of truth had been made available to Christians and I concur one hundred per cent with her on this. If one believes in reincarnation and the notion that each successive lifetime is for a specific purpose on the path to nirvana, as I do, then it's no stretch whatsoever to think that spiritual growth has to start somewhere and history provides plenty of examples that suggest the absolute bottom rung of that ladder is Christianity.

Though raised a Christian (Anglican, to be specific), I have not considered myself to be one since my early 20's. Over the years, I have become profoundly anti-Christian. Religious Studies was one of my minors in university and it's impossible, in my opinion, not to see Christianity in an unfavorable light when compared with other world religions. My gut tells me that all religions are bogus and are simply a means of population control by those in power. But some appear to be more bogus than others.

 

[gravitas]

you're just grumpy because you didn't get laid tonight

If not getting laid was the reason behind my chronic cantankerousness then I'd keep an SP on retainer to improve my mood. The unfortunate reality is that I have near zero tollerance for bullshit.

and wouldn't have it any other way

Why mess with perfection?

 

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

A literal reading of the Bible is incorrect. For scripture, whether it be Christian, Muslim, or Jew to be understood as a Truth that is true for all time and that is also revealed as time passes, a literal meaning can not work. Furthermore, it is idiocy to think that God speaks in any human tongue where in fact transcribers of scripture have taken an interpretation in human language that best fits the truth communicated by God. This alone should give students of scripture skepticism of any literal interpretation.

To address your question: marriage is a piece of paper. It has no meaning in the spiritual sense - and thus neither in the Biblical sense. Only if it is a spiritual marriage, that is, one that has the consent of God is it then a marriage the Bible could be referring to. And just because a couple decide to pledge their vows in a church does not make it a spiritual one either because it can not automatically force such a consent from the Higher Being. The Bible's reference to marriage is thus a spiritual union. Lastly, fornication is understood as a physical act. A physical act does not necessarily violate a spiritual union.

Most Christians are idiots. Christianity is preached to them with the expectation that they have the maturity of school children, thus everything is black and white (ie: literal). This is why most Christians are spiritually immature, and why they have such narrow understanding of Christ's teachings - and often times, a total misunderstanding. That the masses of Christians call themselves "Christian" is truly a joke.

What a bunch of psychobabble fuckin' bullshit.
On the first remark, if one is not to interpret scripture literally, how are they supposed to interpret it? Symbolically? Virtually? FFS. And it is not 'idiocy' to think that GOD speaks in any form of human tongue. There are long-held beliefs that GOD speaks THRU people, whether thru writings, actions, or speaking in tongues. If you are so enlightened to have proof to the contrary, please, do share. otherwise, STFU.
On the 2nd remark, to state that marriage is only a piece of paper with no spiritual meaning, shows just how shallow your little brain really is. To many people, marriage is performed by a priest, in a church, in the eyes of GOD. The spiritual aspect of the marriage comes from within as well. This relates to the thinking that GOD is everywhere and all things, and thus resides from within as well. GOD is in your soul. The only part of a marriage that really has no spiritual meaning is the piece of paper itself. The marriage, however, is sacred.
On the last, and possibly most ignorant remark:

Most Christians are idiots. Christianity is preached to them with the expectation that they have the maturity of school children, thus everything is black and white (ie: literal). This is why most Christians are spiritually immature, and why they have such narrow understanding of Christ's teachings - and often times, a total misunderstanding. That the masses of Christians call themselves "Christian" is truly a joke.

Here's the same paragraph, only spoken about YOU:

GBM is an idiot. He preaches his warped views with all the maturity of school children, thus everything is black and white (ie: paint everything with the same brush). This is why GBM is spiritually immature, and why he has such narrow understanding of Christ's teachings - and often times, a total misunderstanding. That GBM calls himself an authority on anything is truly a joke.

Try not talking out of your ass for once. Perhaps you should stick to what you do know, like taking humiliating public girly pics of your sweetheart.

 

[maxx50]

Two sided truths

It funny that we all ways get into some debait here on religion... one of the most controversial topices .. one which everyone has an opinion on.. or a belief in... and will get dumped on by someone else for what they say on the subject.
Guess what the other one is .. come on guess ... Yes you got . Fucking .. how you can do it .. where you can . do , who you can do it with .. There is allways someone who wants to tell you what is right and wrong .. according to what they believe... there are lots of things that are wrong .. but by tring to treat people with respect.. and care ..and hope for the same from other ... maybe we can make a small part of the world better.
It is so ironic .. or should I say moronic... that guys and girls that are involved in the sex trade .. hold such profound beliefs .. which would be trampled upon equally by religion and the government.
Who truely can say what is the true when it comes to God .. or what is expexcted of us... Yes we each have had our share of revelations . which have given use faith and hope in some thing .. or equally taken our faith and left us hopeless... The fact that life comes down to God and sex ... for with out one there is not the other.. and both a belief in God .. and sex .. can lead to a better spiritual journy.. of inlightenment... One is a connection with the universe . the other is a connection with an other individual., all in love.
So on this start of a new year ..and you can start your new year any day you want .. tomorrow .. next week .. or a few months from now. the world will take a year to go around from what ever day you pick.
We do have one thing in commen.. we have sex with others.. where it leads use .. is a journy we each will take alone and though our own unique perspictive .. no matter how fucked up it is.
Blessing s and Happy New Year .

 

[Sonny]

Firstly, I am not a Christian, but this is my personal take on Christianity.

Christianity is the recorded teachings of, and the example of, Jesus Christ. His teachings are encapsulated as unequivocal love for God and others, sharing and absolute forgiveness. No institutions, no structures, no leaders, no history, no activities done in the name in Christianity are included.

A Christian is a person who, with deep heart and mind conviction, follows the above teachings of Christ, without convenient mis-interpretations.

If all were to simply love one another unequivocally, and if all were to share one's bounty generously, and if all were to forgive others without reservation and without remnant... I can imagine then that the world would be a better place.

 

[georgebushmoron]

It is January 1, 2007. Let the flames begin.

Your reply was so extremely ignorant, it became noteworthy. I'll address as many points as I can.

On the first remark, if one is not to interpret scripture literally, how are they supposed to interpret it? Symbolically? Virtually?

Human language changes over time. A literal interpretation of any text (whether it is Scripture or note) is going to be different 100 years later. Human language is the product of the social fabric and culture of that time and place. For Scripture to be everlasting Truth, the meaning of the words must be understood beyond the letters that form it. Spiritual truths themselves are not revealed to those who are shallow, and not revealed to a humankind that is immature. These Truths are revealed with the passage of time and events to come. Humankind is now in the age of Science, when only a few centuries ago it was in the age of Myth. During the age of Myth, truths were understood one way. In the age of Science, truths are understood as literal and physcial facts. It is obvious humankind has not evolved sufficiently to understand spiritual truths. Yet there is a light: each human soul has the capacity to begin understanding these deeper truths and Scripture is one way upon which people in the scientific age can come to it. It is only by shedding the literal interpretation, which comes from a scientific framework, that human beings can begin to understand.

And it is not 'idiocy' to think that GOD speaks in any form of human tongue. There are long-held beliefs that GOD speaks THRU people, whether thru writings, actions, or speaking in tongues. If you are so enlightened to have proof to the contrary, please, do share. otherwise, STFU.

It is documented in Scripture that God speaks through people. In actuality, speaks through Visions, Dreams, Images, and Manifestations of God (ie: Jesus and prophets). But after these messages are delivered, there is the obstacle of interpretation. When humans interpret such messages, there are all sorts of things that can influence that interpretation to be wrong... such things as egos, pride, politics, fear, etc.

On the 2nd remark, to state that marriage is only a piece of paper with no spiritual meaning, shows just how shallow your little brain really is. To many people, marriage is performed by a priest, in a church, in the eyes of GOD.

It is ridiculous to assume that just because God is omnipresent, that the consent from God exists for any marriage. Just because there is a priest, a church, and other trappings, that it is a spiritual marriage in the eyes of God is an ignorant assumption. When reduced, human marriage is at best nothing more than human love, human vows, and a piece of paper granted by the government.

The spiritual aspect of the marriage comes from within as well. This relates to the thinking that GOD is everywhere and all things, and thus resides from within as well. GOD is in your soul.

Where does it say God is in human souls? God is the creator of souls, but it does not mean he exists within human souls. A desperately wrong assumption.

Try not talking out of your ass for once.

My ass is your brain.

 

[maxx50]

Lets here from God

I think about all we will tver prove is that in order to get any point of view across the barriers of ignorance.. we have to to write a whole thesis to explain the piont we are makeing on any subject .. and then that won't make every one happy either..
So let use here from God on this subjest

ZOT!


And I will interpet.

God said .......... ZOT!......and any one that got hit by it .. is fried!

 

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

It is January 1, 2007. Let the flames begin.
Your reply was so extremely ignorant, it became noteworthy. I'll address as many points as I can...

Glad to see I got your attention. You might want to step back for a moment and re-read your original post. If you don't think that a simplistic post such as it is, that insults the institution of marriage and Christians and Christianity on an all-encompassing level, is not going to receive the type of reaction that I gave you, then you're more of a simpleton than I thought.
Language is simply an interpretation of ideas. You can express the same idea in 50 different languages and you end up with more-or-less the same result. However, I believe that the interpretation of scriptures lies within the individual. It's simply a case of reading between the lines. Perhaps this is what you meant? I dunno, it's really hard to tell. I'm now assuming, based on your most recent remark, that when you say "it is idiocy to think that God speaks in any human tongue", you really mean to say that the written word is simply a human interpretation of scripture and, since interpretations are effected by a number of biased factors, cannot be taken as literal?
As for the marriage thing, it is no more "ridiculous to assume that just because God is omnipresent, that the consent from God exists for any marriage" than it is to assume that GOD exists at all. Unless you know something I don't...
Last item:

Where does it say God is in human souls? God is the creator of souls, but it does not mean he exists within human souls. A desperately wrong assumption.

It's a fuckin' euphemism. Try not to interpret everything I say so literally.