a site on the internet that held my attention for quite some time. The link iswww.the-goldenrule.name
This nameless author is trying very hard to show that fornication does not mean sex outside of marriage. He goes as far as calling up the word Agape and saying the church removed the word sex from the definitions list of Agape. I should also mention that he states that the agape meetings held in the early church were nothing but Christian orgies. From my own studies on the subject the agape meetings were in fact the re-enactment of the last supper at the breaking of bread by the early churches.
He also used the word studies to point out that God condones homosexuality and lesbianism. Virgin does not mean a woman who has not had sex, it just means a maiden, and so he carries on. This is not the first time I have come across a translation of singular words type of theology or as I like calling it Chicken Pecking at the word. The end result of such a theology however interesting it might be, always ends up in a gnostic system where the Word of God is substituted for what man wants. Like the word says they are looking for a theology that will tickle their ears.
I just want to submit the conclusion this scholar came to from his intensive research and word studies:
“As a conclusion, pre-marital sex and homo/bi-sexuality are definitely NOT sins! And, contrarily, “open” sex with a variety of adults is Christ recommended because it builds/distributes more “tangible” (real) love/interest, and even optimizes our immune system. However, if one vow’s exclusive provisions to another (marriage), where a person is relying on the other, then the number one Golden Rule has precedence.” (source: http://www.the-goldenrule.name/06-09-99__NEWS_RELEASE_Bible_Corruption.htm)
Now to Gods Word:
Rom 1:26-32
(26) For this cause, God
gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
(28) And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right,
(29) being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers,
(30) backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(31) undiscerning, perfidious, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful;
(32) who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them.
Lev 18:22 You shall not
lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination to God.
These verses make it difficult to come to a different conclusion on homosexuality and lesbianism other than God does not like it much…AT ALL. No matter how your translate the word homosexual or try reason with trickery, this is the simple crux of the matter.
Now:
1Co 7:1-10
(1) Now concerning what you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
(2) But, because of the fornications, let each have his own wife, and let each have her own husband.
(3) Let the husband give to the wife proper kindness, and likewise the wife also to the husband.
(4) The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. And likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.
(5) Do not deprive one another, unless it is with consent for a time, so that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer. And come together again so that Satan does not tempt you for your incontinence.
(6) But I speak this according to permission, not according to commandment.
(7) For I would that all men were even as I myself am. But each has his proper gift from God, one according to this manner and another according to that.
(8) I say therefore to the unmarried and the widows, It is good for them if they remain even as I.
(9) But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.
(10) And to the married I command (not I, but the Lord), a woman not to be separated from her husband.
The argument of the anonymous writer is that fornication or sex outside of marriage is condoned in scripture. He actually quoted this scripture as well to make a point that God does not want us to get married. What he is not touching on is the character of Paul. He was a Pharisee of Pharisees, therefore in the line of Priests that do not marry as a rule. Paul is burning with zeal for the gospel. His wish is that all men could be like him to spread the word and give all their time and affection to the gospel.
But Paul has to concede that this is not for every man. On the other hand Paul makes a remarkable statement. He says if you can stay single and work for the Lord do so, but if you burn with lust for a woman, it is better you marry her. Really? Why can I not just have this free sex with her as the anonymous writer proposes? Why should I marry her if she gets my hormones going? No Paul, you got that wrong, fornication translates as free sex, I should not have to marry the woman, I can just have her…
The writer also quotes
verse 6:
You see, per the Corinthians’ request, Paul “allowed” Christians to marry, but only “as a concession, not a commandment” as Paul giving command for not getting married. (source: http://www.the-goldenrule.name/06-09-99__NEWS_RELEASE_Bible_Corruption.htm)
Come on…Can this author be so arrogant to think no one was going to read the scripture to check his accuracy? The concession and command has bearing on the abstaining from intercourse for a time to dedicate oneself to God. This is a concession made by Paul for them and is not a command lest Satan tempt you for your incontinence/or failure to restrain sexual appetite.
We could go on, but I think scripture speaks out enough from these points. It is dangerous to just use the Greek and Hebrew translations of words to build up a whole theology or to prove a point of a conceptual theology as can be seen from this author’s writings.