Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (The Blackguard of the West)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: fornication and Christianity
Message-ID: <1751@pucc-h>
Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 03:57:39 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.1751
Posted: Tue Jan 29 03:57:39 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 06:12:16 EST
References: <343@uvm-cs.UUCP>, <543@mako.UUCP>
Organization: Cordes Junction
Lines: 64
Keywords: Christianity adultery fornication

From Dave Seifert (mako!seifert):

> Indeed, it seems that there *isn't* any rule against fornication
> in the Torah/Old Testament.  Now, considering the number of rules
> contained there, and the amount of detail, and the importance of
> all these rules, a rule against fornication certainly couldn't
> have been *accidentally* left out.  No way, Jack.  Thus I must
> conclude that fornication was perfectly acceptable according to
> the Torah/Old Testament.

I remember this issue being discussed not too long ago, perhaps in
net.religion, and I think someone mentioned a law that if it was found
that a man had deflowered a woman without marrying her first, he was
required to pay her bride price to her father, or something like that.
I don't have the passage (or the article referring to it) at my fingertips;
anyone know the spot I'm referring to?  In any case, this does not suggest
that fornication was perfectly acceptable; however, it does suggest that it
was not in the same class as adultery (for which the punishment was death
by stoning).  This makes sense, actually, because in adultery the sin is not
so much the sex itself as the breaking of a commitment, a bond, between the
participants and their respective mates (or mate, if only one is married).

> For the moment, assume that the greek *was* correctly translated.
> If so, then what hat did Paul pull out this "no fornication" stuff
> from?  Freeing us from the Law, and then setting up rules against
> things which were previously ok, just doesn't compute.

Dr. John White, in his challenging book "Eros Defiled", focused on Paul's
verse, "The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord" -- i.e., that we
have better things to do than to fornicate.  The book is worth reading; I'm
not sure I entirely agree with it, but it is thought-provoking.

On the other hand, we are, indeed, perfectly free to fornicate.  However,
Paul also commented (in passages on a different topic, but it applies here)
"Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a
stumbling block to the weak", and "'Everything is permissible' -- but not
everything is beneficial.  'Everything is permissible' -- but not everything
is constructive."

> On the other hand, if the greek *has* been incorrectly translated,
> it seems that quite a number of people have incorrectly translated
> it the same way !?  How could this be?

A side question on this:  Does anyone know what "fornication", the English
word, denoted in the 17th century, when the King James came out?  Did it
mean the same as now?

In answer to Snoopy's question, I have a wild hypothesis:  The medieval
prejudice against all sexuality continues to influence for ill the attitudes
of many today, doubtless including many Bible translators and preachers.
Perhaps they have tended to be harsher than the original intended.

> I'd like to see some discussion on this!!

So would I.  And not just for academic reasons!  I am in some relationships
where the question of relating sexually could become quite vitally important,
and I'm not sure what I would do or should do if push comes to shove (oh dear,
what a pun).  This is a main topic of my prayers, but I haven't come to a
resolution yet.

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
"Head him off at the pass!"  (advice by a mother to her daughter)