Re: Sexually Immoral

[Dash RipRock]

www.learnreligions.com

In their opinion on the matter they left out 1 Peter 2:13,14 which is in fact applicable because it does not oppose God's Word.

That's like saying God is OK with one driving a car without a license if they are being safe and not causing any problems

Or saying as long as one is living for the Lord it's OK to not pay their taxes.

So God is OK with us picking and choosing which laws we obey and which ones we ignore after reading 1 Peter 2:13,14?

The scriptures never put an end to polygamy or concubinage or slavery.

You aren't aware that a new High Priest has come and He changed the law having done away with the old to establish the new?

Hope you become knowledgeable in the Book of Hebrews and quick!

Would you happen to have a "servant" named Kunta Kinte?

So two people living together is not a sin, but condemning them is.

Should we remove 1 Peter 2:13,14 from our bibles?

What other passages would you suggest getting rid of?

Just askin for a friend!

 

[Dash RipRock]

Like I said I’m Spirit led...not Bible led...my spirit is Born Again....

Yep, that's what happened to Adam and Eve.

They ignored God's Word and did what they felt like was right for them.

 

[Ritajanice]

Yep, that's what happened to Adam and Eve.

They ignored God's Word and did what they felt like was right for them.

I don’t ignore the Living Spirit Of God because my spirit is Born Again...how can I....at my peril if I do...shaking in my boots even thinking about disobeying the Living Spirit Of God.

Anyway my friend I am going to leave it there..God Bless and I’m sure you know what the right thing to do is.....it’s hard breaking up with a good friend.you are in my prayers as well as your friend.

 

[Grailhunter]

You aren't aware that a new High Priest has come and He changed the law having done away with the old to establish the new?

Hope you become knowledgeable in the Book of Hebrews and quick!

Would you happen to have a "servant" named Kunta Kinte?

Unless you get specific what you are saying means nothing.

Should we remove 1 Peter 2:13,14 from our bibles?

What other passages would you suggest getting rid of?

Just askin for a friend!

Abortion and homosexual?

 

[Dash RipRock]

Unless you get specific what you are saying means nothing.

Claiming God has not ended allowing polygamy and slavery is something one says when they are ignorant of the fact that the old testament has ended along with the leadership of Moses over the Mosaic law having been replaced by the New Covenant with Jesus as the High Priest and the Law of Christ having been established.

Maybe you can take a course on the Book of Hebrews and get up to speed!
Better make it the entire New Testament while you're at it

Abortion and homosexual?

God's Word teaches that murder and gayness are both abomination unto Him.

Man I sure hope you get up to speed on what God teaches in His Word and quick!

 

[marks]

Seeing God's Word is already clear on this issue, I have no need to go to Him in prayer about it.

For me it's more like I just habitually discuss the issues of life with God. I don't see anything in life that doesn't need prayer, my dependency is on Him.

And fully agreed, we test our thoughts and feelings against the Bible, not the other way around!

Much love!

 

[Grailhunter]

Claiming God has not ended allowing polygamy and slavery is something one says when they are ignorant of the fact that the old testament has ended along with the leadership of Moses over the Mosaic law having been replaced by the New Covenant with Jesus as the High Priest and the Law of Christ having been established.

Maybe you can take a course on the Book of Hebrews and get up to speed!
Better make it the entire New Testament while you're at it

Well Mister Ignorant,
Like I said you can believe anything you want and disregard the scriptures and history.
The first Christians were Jewish-Christians and the Law of Christ? Christ and the Apostles never said to stop polygamy, concubinage, or slavery.

 

[Grailhunter]

God's Word teaches that murder and gayness are both abomination unto Him.

This was in response to ....1 Peter 2:13,14

 

[Bob]

Sounds like you need to repent of something.






God has already said in His Word that homosexuality is sinful behavior and those enraging in it are corrupt and will; not be found in His Kingdom. In short, according to what God has already said, they are going to hell

Unless they repent and turn away from their sexual perversion which includes the heterosexuals who have sex outside of a marriage that God approves of






Those that disregard what God says in His Word wouldn't.

They are on the outside looking in along with the devil and all his demons.






Yeah and sadly it's taking them to hell fire.





True believers are called to reach out to the lost.





Good scripture reference!

That's what I'm thinking.





1 Peter 2:13,14 is in fact applicable because it does not oppose God's Word.

Just like driving a car requires a license since it does not oppose God's Word.

Now when they told the Apostles to not teach in the Name of Jesus, that WAS in opposition to God's Word so any government telling Christians to not use the Name of Jesus is in error and that directive should be ignored and disobeyed as the Apostles did in the Book of Acts.






So it's OK to ignore what the Lord tells us in 1 Peter 2:13,14 just because it's inconvenient?

Thank you for your reply.

You might want to rethink your premise and conclusion, because it sounds like you have falsely accused your brother.

1 Peter 2: 13,14 is about obeying secular laws. Thus, if you want to be recognized as married in the eyes of the State, you must follow State law. But a State marriage ceremony, by a JP or on the Las Vegas strip, does not constitute Holy Matrimony.

The pastor and brother believe the marriage was blessed by God, and so it must be.

Since your brother does not claim to be married per a state procedure, he has not broken any law, so he is obedient to 1 Peter 2.

Perhaps, since the State recognizes same-sex marriage, he believes a State marriage is worthless, and the only marriage he recognizes is Holy Matrimony.

Peace.

 

[quietthinker]

Sounds like you need to repent of something.

Ahhh, projection....what a wonderful way of passing the buck!

 

[Dash RipRock]

For me it's more like I just habitually discuss the issues of life with God

Concerning sexual immorality, the Lord has already spoken and it is settled forever - He does not accept sexual morality.

One can pray about it for years and years all they want and the answer will always be the same, He does not accept sexual morality.

Any discussions with the Lord that exclude what He has already said are exercises in futility because it's impossible for Him to lie. For all of eternity this will remain the same and shall never change - He does not accept sexual morality.

You might want to rethink your premise and conclusion, because it sounds like you have falsely accused your brother.

You might want to rethink your premise and conclusion, because you are not accepting what the Lord has already said on the matter.

I've spoken with this guy about it and he too has rejected what the Lord has said about it because he wants to have sex more than he wants to please the Lord. Putting anything before the Lord is idolatry

Like I said you can believe anything you want and disregard the scriptures and history.

It's NOT OK to reject what God says just because they did things differently in the past than what God says in His Word.

Since your brother does not claim to be married per a state procedure, he has not broken any law, so he is obedient to 1 Peter 2.

The law states that in order for a couple to be legally married they are to file a marriage license with the state.

Of course shacking up and fornicating between two consenting adults is not breaking man's law, but it is a violation of what God's Word teaches

1 Peter 2:13,14 - Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good

Since he is not legally married he is a fornicator which is sinful behavior.

Perhaps, since the State recognizes same-sex marriage, he believes a State marriage is worthless, and the only marriage he recognizes is Holy Matrimony.

Nice excuse based on the wisdom of men who reject God's Word but that's no reason to fornicate.

The first Christians were Jewish-Christians and the Law of Christ? Christ and the Apostles never said to stop polygamy, concubinage, or slavery.

Well then by all means, you should go out and get you a concubine and a few slaves.

Whatever makes you feel good right?

 

[Grailhunter]

what God says in His Word.

Don’t get me wrong, considering women as property, polygamy, concubinage, and slavery was wrong from the start. And I do not like it that Christianity practiced these things. But religion and history and reality is not about what you like.

Imposing what you like on the scriptures is no way to know the truth. Same thing for history. You can come up with a nice story but is not the truth.

You said… God says in His Word. And that is my point completely but you cannot put words in God’s mouth.

 

[Dash RipRock]

You said… God says in His Word. And that is my point completely but you cannot put words in God’s mouth.

I'm not the one making the claim that we can have multiple wives and have slaves, claiming the Lord never stopped accepting these as acceptable lifestyles for His people to live in as He did under the old testament.

Those making such claims do not know the scriptures.

 

[Grailhunter]

I'm not the one making the claim that we can have multiple wives and have slaves, claiming the Lord never stopped accepting these as acceptable lifestyles for His people to live in as He did under the old testament.

Those making such claims do not know the scriptures.

That is not what I said. I said the scriptures did not put an end to them. Christianity eventually put an end to them. But as far as condemning them even Martin Luther said he could not condemn polygamy because the scriptures did not condemn polygamy. I said they were wrong for the start.

From post 32
Don’t get me wrong, considering women as property, polygamy, concubinage, and slavery was wrong from the start. And I do not like it that that Christianity practiced these things. But religion and history and reality is not about what you like.

From post 19
Eventually polygamy or concubinage or slavery were condemned by Christianity.

 

[Dash RipRock]

That is not what I said. I said the scriptures did not put an end to them. Christianity eventually put an end to them

That's odd because there's polygamy and slavery still going on in this world.

So you've never seen anything in the New Te4stament that teaches having multiple wives is wrong and slavery is wrong?

Martin Luther said he could not condemn polygamy because the scriptures did not condemn polygamy.

That's because he was a drunk and a false teacher who did not accept all that the Lord teaches in His Word.

All Luther did was lead people in to the ditch

 

[Dash RipRock]

Here's one saying slavery is sinful.

You never seen this?

1 Timothy 1:9,10 - realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and worldly, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
for the sexually immoral, homosexuals, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

 

[Grailhunter]

That's odd because there's polygamy and slavery still going on in this world.

I did not say that polygamy, concubinage and slavery are not going on in the world. I said Christianity eventually condemned it.

 

[Grailhunter]

Here's one saying slavery is sinful.

You never seen this?

1 Timothy 1:9,10 - realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and worldly, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
for the sexually immoral, homosexuals, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

 

[ProDeo]

I'm having issues with continuing in fellowship with a buddy of mine I've know for a few years due to his fornicating.

I found out that after he said he got married to a woman that is a widow (eligible for re marriage) that he did not actually get legally married and has instead just took her to some pastor and they claimed he married them.

Turns out she's getting some benefits each month that would go away if she were to get married legally so because of this they did not get married legally so they could game the system to keep her benefits by not filing a marriage license.

Now he's shacking up with her fornicating claiming to be married and gets offended at anyone who says he is not married after not having filed a marriage license and not having a covenant of marriage before others as witnesses.

Personally I don't have a good conscience to continue fellowship with this guy.
Just curious if others would have issues with continuing to fellowship with someone claiming to be a brother who is sexually immoral.

It's not sexually immoral in the eyes of God, they are probably financially cheating the State by living together in one house and keeping that information a secret for the authorities. Which is a sin.

BTW, I don't see evidence in Scripture couples in love who want to share the rest of their lives together are obliged to have a public wedding day, not even to have a church ceremony, those are just good traditions. IMO, once a coupe has sexual intercourse they are married in the eyes of the Lord.

Deut 22:28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
Deut 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

Ex 22:16 “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.

Matt 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Matt 19:5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Matt 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

@Ritajanice @LuxMundi

You guys can believe what you want but if you are interested in the truth here it is....

Fornication is not a biblical word and for the most part does not agree with the scriptures or reality.

No where in the scriptures Old or New Testament is there a requirement for a wedding ceremony to be married.

All wedding ceremonies come from Pagan customs. Even today there are a lot of Pagan customs embedded in Christian weddings.

For most of history the Jews and Christians formed marriages by the union. The union consummated the marriage. Yahweh defined the process of marriage…..For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24 Just that simple. The difference between casual sex and a marriage is the couple stayed together. Whether or not the two families joined in a celebration…no clergy. And the union occurred during the celebration in the bridal chamber.

The Gentiles brought the custom of wedding ceremonies into Christianity. And so weddings were occurring in Christianity from that point on but they were voluntary. The first documented Christian wedding occurred in the 8th century although I am sure they were occurring before that.

In the 16th century Protestants made church wedding ceremonies a requirement to be married. Before that the Catholic church did not require weddings but shortly after that the Catholic church followed the Protestant lead.

So two people living together is not a sin, but condemning them is.
This is why the word fornication does agree with the scriptures or reality.

The scriptures never put an end to polygamy or concubinage or slavery. Polygamy and concubinage was practiced by Christians and Jews to around the Middle Ages. Even Marten Luther said he could not condemn polygamy because the scriptures do not.

Up to the 19th century grooms buying their brides from their fathers continued. And father choosing their daughter's husband continued. Our custom today of asking the father for his daughter's hand in marriage comes from this custom.

Eventually polygamy or concubinage or slavery were condemned by Christianity.

On divorce….the converstion regard divorce in the gospels mostly does not pertain to Christianity. Christ was talking to Jews about the Mosaic Law pertaining to divorce and there is no way of knowing how many wives they had. And Christianity did not adopt the custom of a Letter of Divorce.

Now I can expand on these topics because I have a few essays written on them.

Your entire argument collapses under one Greek word: porneía. It appears all throughout the New Testament and is consistently translated as “fornication” or “sexual immorality” — defined as any sexual activity outside of covenant marriage. Jesus uses it in Matthew 5:32, Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:18, and it’s one of the four foundational prohibitions for Gentile believers in Acts 15:20. You can’t erase that word or redefine it to fit your argument. Whether or not wedding ceremonies are cultural is irrelevant — what matters is covenant. Hebrews 13:4 is explicit: “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

The Bible doesn’t need to outlaw polygamy line by line — Jesus already restored the original model in Matthew 19:4–6, quoting Genesis 2:24: “The two shall become one flesh.” Not three. Not seven. The early church affirmed monogamy as the covenant standard, and Paul reinforced this when he said elders must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2). Your historical observations don’t justify lawlessness. They show how far man drifted from the standard Christ re-established. What you're preaching isn't truth — it's a license to sin, dressed in footnotes and distraction.

The argument that “living together isn’t a sin” collapses under Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:16–17. He makes it clear that sexual union creates a spiritual bond, whether or not a ceremony took place: “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’” Paul isn’t just talking about prostitution — he’s warning that sex without covenant binds you to sin and defiles the body, which is meant to be the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19–20). The issue isn’t whether a couple “stays together” after sex — it’s whether the union was entered into before God, with accountability, covenant, and holiness. Anything less than that is porneía — and no amount of historical trivia will change what the scriptures plainly declare.