Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Revival Churches > RCI Discussion Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted:12/06/2010 6:17 AMCopy HTML

Early translators of the Bible used the English word “Fornication” incorrectly. The English Dictionary meaning is ‘sex outside of marriage’ but the Biblical meaning is ‘unlawful sex’. You need to read what God declared as unlawful sex. So when the NT refers to “fornication” it is referring to either man with man, woman with woman, man or woman with beast, prostitution, sex with no intention of marriage, relationship with an unbeliever, incest and idolatry and not someone who may have slept with their partner before a marriage certificate. Latter translations of the Bible use the words “sexual immorality” or such instead of the word “Fornication”. ” The word “fornication” comes from the word “porneia” which was a district where the heathen visited prostitutes thus the term “flee fornication” or “flee porneia” as we read in 1Cor 6 v 18. Two Christian people who have slept together are not prostitutes unless they have slept with another party before. The Bible direction is for them to get married. The Word of God never used the Word “fornication” against anyone unless one of the engaged couple was not faithful and had a sexual encounter with another party. There was no penalty for a couple who had sex before a wedding ceremony however they needed to marry. Exodus 22v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife. Deut22 v 28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found. Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsels father fifty shekels of silver and he shall be his wife because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Some laws of God were just common sense transactions which was not counted as evil, fornication or had a penalty as we read in Ex 22v 16 and Deut 22v 28-29. Some however were evil, was fornication and had a penalty such as Deut 22v 23-24. Here is an act of fornication which was called evil and had the penalty of death. Deut22 v 23-24. If a damsel that is a virgin and be betrothed (engaged) to an husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them out unto the gate of the city and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel because she cried not being in the city and the man because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife, so thou shalt put away this evil from you. The Jewish culture has a better understanding about fulfilling a marriage than do many Christians allowing their children to marry if necessary once they have completed their Bar Mitzvah or Bit Mitzvah regardless of Government laws. (however when they are of legal age the couple register their marriage with the Government)
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:12/06/2010 8:01 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

Two Christian people who have slept together are not prostitutes unless they have slept with another party before.

Really? I would have thought that they were not prostitutes unless they had sex for money. Whores rarely give freebies.

While I don't adhere to a Christian morality any more and I am all for the slackening of the Christian rules on sex, I suspect your definitions here are a wee bit mixed up.

Perhaps you'd like to share your sources for this 'exposition' of holy writ?


Exodus 22v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife. Deut22 v 28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found. Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsels father fifty shekels of silver and he shall be his wife because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Some laws of God were just common sense transactions which was not counted as evil,

Ah yes, if your daughter sleeps with some bloke and he gives you some coinage then all is well in God's eyes. So it seems the RCI had it wrong with forced marriages all these years, but only in that they didn't pay off the daddy.

Bullsh*t!  Archaic morality for a bygone age. What you're condoning here is that if two kids make a mistake then they are forced to marry and spend the rest of their lives together! Get a grip.


The Jewish culture has a better understanding about fulfilling a marriage than do many Christians allowing their children to marry if necessary once they have completed their Bar Mitzvah or Bit Mitzvah regardless of Government laws. (however when they are of legal age the couple register their marriage with the Government)

Mitzvahs happen at what, 13 years old?  So you're suggesting forced marriages for 13 year olds?  Regardless of the laws of the land?  Dear Jesus, save us from your followers. smiley6



Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:12/06/2010 9:21 AMCopy HTML

Ex-Rci Pastor Alf Neri,  wrote and excellent piece on this subject,  

This really convinced a number of us that the revamped rci morals policy was unscriptural and that we had been totally duped with  the earlier split, that was politically motivated and was simply done to get Simon in as head Pastor instead of John Kulman

Alf if you still read this site, maybe now would be an opportunity to get it up here, and allow folk to see for themselves and allow there blinkers to be removed.  Especially since its convention time at BoxHill this weekend,




Revival Centres the exclusive brethren of the pentecostal world

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:12/06/2010 7:21 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

Early translators of the Bible used the English word “Fornication” incorrectly. The English Dictionary meaning is ‘sex outside of marriage’ but the Biblical meaning is ‘unlawful sex’.

Get access to a decent lexical library. "Porneia" simply means "Extra-Marital Intercourse" - In other words "illicit coitus" (TDNT Volume VI page 579). "Porneia" is the feminine noun and "Porneuo" is the verb which has the meaning "I fornicate" . Interesting is that past tense is "Ekporneuo" - "I fornicated" -
So there you go

Guest..
.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:13/06/2010 2:40 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Te Luo Yi




Archaic morality for a bygone age. What you're condoning here is that if two kids make a mistake then they are forced to marry and spend the rest of their lives together! Get a grip.

Yes indeed, your advice holds SOUND Biblical weight, especially in the New Testament context ... enforced marriages is legalism ( legalism is something the RCI/RF seem very proficient at) and will only bring bondage and misery and possibly death ( suicide or whatever ). Grace is the only solution..


Well done !!

To Guest, ask yourself the question of how Jesus responded to the Woman caught in the Act of Adultery in John's Account of the Gospel.. The Pharisee's sought to stone the woman and the Pharisees find a nice counterpart in the Modern Australian cults, the Revival Centres International and its daughter off-shoot, The Revival Fellowship... But not so with Jesus.. Jesus forgave the woman instead .. O one side you have got the pharisees that are representative of the Torah (law) and on the other side you have Jesus who is representative of Grace... And guess what !! Grace won the day and the woman was freed from her guilt...

Guest

..
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:13/06/2010 3:44 AMCopy HTML

This topic was beaten to death long ago. Didaktikon (Ian) demolished the argument that fornication has been misinterpreted here:

http://forum1.aimoo.com/revival/Revival-Doctrines-we-USED-TO-BELIEVE/RCI-Members-Consider-Fornication-doctrine-1-1026524.html

I reckon it's the same person back again, trying an old argument on a new crowd.

Bud
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:16/06/2010 1:12 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Te Luo Yi

If RCI understood the Biblical pattern for marriage there would not have been the confusion in the Church. This caused false condemnation to young couples and splits within families.

 

God did not give authorization to the church or government for marriage.

 

God gave authorization to the parent’s of the couples in particular the father of the bride.

 

If a couple got together sexually they were not forced to marry immediately nor condemned but would become engaged and were not to become involved with a third party.

 

They were both groomed for marriage. If the father of the bride deemed the groom or bride too irresponsible or immature the marriage would not take place until permission was given by the father. In the mean time the couples were given guidance. When they were deemed responsible the marriage could take place. This may have meant that the groom may have had to pay a dowry (although not usually required today) and had enough resources to provide for a wife and family before permission was given for the marriage.

 

The ages of the couple had nothing to do with the marriage but responsibility and maturity did.




Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:16/06/2010 1:25 AMCopy HTML



Get access to a decent lexical library. "Porneia" simply means "Extra-Marital Intercourse" - In other words "illicit coitus" (TDNT Volume VI page 579). "Porneia" is the feminine noun and "Porneuo" is the verb which has the meaning "I fornicate" . Interesting is that past tense is "Ekporneuo" - "I fornicated" -
So there you go

Guest..

 

I do not have any problem with your translation other than in 1 Cor 6 when “Flee Fornication” was mentioned. This was in the context of prostitution and not how RCI interpret “Fornication” to mean.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:16/06/2010 6:15 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest


God gave authorization to the parent’s of the couples in particular the father of the bride.

 


God has nothing to do with it. What you're attributing to God was/is common practice for patriarchal societies that oppress women and see them as the property of males. What you are describing is still done in many Muslim and African societies.

The Bible also says you should stone adulterers, not eat shellfish and dare not wear cloth woven of two different fabrics.

It's all just very silly...and yet you try to assert this is the way we should live today?

Bah humbug!


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:17/06/2010 2:58 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Te Luo Yi

Reply to Guest


God gave authorization to the parent’s of the couples in particular the father of the bride.

 


God has nothing to do with it.


God does not tolerate sexual, physical or verbal abuse from the husband to the wife nor wife to the husband.

 

You are reading things into this that I have not stated.

 

Godly should parents should be the example to their children in marriage and guide their children. Of course there are exceptions where the parents need help in their behaviour.

 

Generally most of the parents in the RCI are good examples in marriage and are the ones who should guide their children into marriage and the RCI should keep out of relationships unless some one is seeking help. Then the advice should be to seek God for the answers not man.


Epios Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:18/06/2010 4:44 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Im_out

Ex-Rci Pastor Alf Neri,  wrote and excellent piece on this subject,  

This really convinced a number of us that the revamped rci morals policy was unscriptural and that we had been totally duped with  the earlier split, that was politically motivated and was simply done to get Simon in as head Pastor instead of John Kulman


Much covering up was done by both sides during that time.

Although it is in the past, yet even to the present, on the subject of "the split" RFers scorn the suggestion that there even might have been other reasons than the morals issue behind the events of 1995.  RFers won't have it that there was any more to it than caring pasters protecting them (the flock) from the once almost deified but now rogue Pastor Lloyd and his ridding Revival Centres of fornicators (past and present) for ever.

Fornication and life expulsion perhaps provided a convenient smokescreen to conceal the behind the scenes politics and power play.  If they followed their bible as they say they do the morals issue in itself could have been resolved without splitting.

What better distraction than the always much discussed subject of fornication, whether directly affected or indirectly, who was out and who had returned from being put out for it was of much interest to many.  The fear of life expulsion, well emphasised by the newly formed RF, worked well also to dispel any loyalty to Lloyd worries within the flock.

There were faint murmers of concern, slipped by a few, about the possible and increasingly probable elevation of Lloyd's son Simon taking over the top job months before the, sudden to most, announcement of a new group now called Revival Fellowship lead by John Kuhlman breaking ties with Revival Centres.  The only reason given was the morals issue and concern for the people.

I know this has been discussed before but Im_Out's comments brought back those old memories.

Epi

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:20/06/2010 1:48 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Epios

Epi,

 

I agree that if the Bible were followed on the morals issue then there would have been no split.

 

Even Lloyd did say that, “no one even knows what fornication is”. I cannot remember wether LIoyd said this directly to me during debate or he said this directly to the “flock.”

 

Lloyd’s aggressiveness in conveying his ideas makes it difficult to talk through scripture with him. His some times miss guided passion, as we know is a danger to everyone if you accept all of what is said. I now know that some RCI doctrine is false yet I still hold onto what was correct.

 

I have no doubt that Lloyd’s replacement by Simon was because Simon was willing to go along with Lloyd’s ideas where others would not.

 

When Lloyd’s heath was in question Simon was the right hand man for Lloyd and followed Lloyd doctrine without question. I don’t think Lloyd’s replacement by Simon was anything to do with passing the “church” to some one in the family but more to do with following Lloyd’s ideas wether correct or incorrect. Many of the “old flock” of Pastors were there because of the same scenario and that they would always give in to Lloyd’s ideas.

 

I have no doubt that Lloyd’s health issues are to do with giving place to the devil. To say that a RCI member has health problems because of demonic spirits would be frowned upon but now I know differently. I still will not give up hope that all may be corrected some day. 


Epios Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:20/06/2010 5:05 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

 


Hi Guest,

Thanks for your interesting post.

Lloyd had a pretty good run.  A strong agressive (imperious) personality like he had would not be used to being thwarted, ever.  There had been smaller splits before but quite possibly this was the big one that had to happen, eventually. 

Years ago I attented a very good talk given by a visiting Dr of Psychology on self centredness (still have notes) who referred to those (especially strong personalities) who gather around themselves only people who agree. They are never challenged and thus become convinced on their own invincibility.  

On the morals issue I recently I viewed a DVD of an interview with Jock Duncan where he referred to Lloyd once running past him the theory of Universal Reconcilliation.  Something Jock gently eased him out of as not a good option.  I wonder if this theory was still in Lloyd's mind when he wanted to make his clean sweep of fornicators forever from RCI halls.  Although they were not to be part of his "perfect church" they would still nevertheless be saved, eventually.

Do you know if RCI still hold to the morals policy that Lloyd laid out in 1995 or thereabouts?

Epi
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:20/06/2010 1:26 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Im_out

Ex-Rci Pastor Alf Neri,  wrote and excellent piece on this subject,  

This really convinced a number of us that the revamped rci morals policy was unscriptural and that we had been totally duped with  the earlier split, that was politically motivated and was simply done to get Simon in as head Pastor instead of John Kulman

Alf if you still read this site, maybe now would be an opportunity to get it up here, and allow folk to see for themselves and allow there blinkers to be removed.  Especially since its convention time at BoxHill this weekend,




Revival Centres the exclusive brethren of the pentecostal world


I will pass your comment on to Alf. I fellowship with Alf. We have a small group that meet in a room next to the Ringwood library. Meetings are at 11.30am. All welcome
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:22/06/2010 12:10 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Epios

Reply to Guest

Epi,

  I am sure there would not have been any changes to the moral policy as Alf would not have gone through the same problems. What I know of Alf and his passion for the Truth, he would have purser veered as long as possible to try and work through scripture with RCI before he moved on.

In my case I was removed from the RCI about 8 years ago and the “Fornication” doctrine was still the same. It never sat comfortably with me and I am sure with many others as well. I think I have been stamped “never to return” although my grievance is not personal toward Simon or Lloyd or anyone else. Lloyd and Simon’s job was never easy and can become “political” at times. They caused me grievance and I caused them grievance but all works for good.

 My issue was the way they interpret “Fornication” Clearly in the OT and NT there were examples of adultery, incest and prostitution that was in the category of “Fornication”. But when an unattached single person (in the Lord) found a soul mate and they became sexually intimate, the OT and NT did direct marriage with the guidance of the parents. There was never any condemnation or penalty for such in the scriptures unless they were not faithful to one another.

 Personally I have no problem with the Church having a firm stand against adultery or another immoral sexual conduct but not against young couples who have found a partner.

 Most of the “so called sexual crimes” were young people falling in love and then becoming sexually intimate with each other. Scripturally there should have been no condemnation but guidance into marriage but because of miss interpretation of scripture, false doctrine evolved. The RCI doctrine wrongly condemned a lot of young adults causing them to become disillusioned with the Church and God.

 If the word “Fornication” was studied this would have shown that the translators had used the wrong English word which meant “sex outside of marriage” instead of the Biblical meaning of “unlawful sex”. Studies of the OT would have shown what was lawful and what was unlawful. The OT showed no punishment or condemnation for sex before marriage other than the couple would be engaged and would marry under the guidance of the parent. The NT shows the same pattern. The word “Fornication” had been corrected in latter translations of the Bible to sexual immorality or impurity.

 This was confirmed to me when I questioned some Jewish Rabbi’s about marriage and what they did when young couples became sexually involved before marriage. They did not follow Government Laws on this but used scriptural direction, with parents guiding the couple into healthy marriages.

 RCI are not the only ones who get this interpretation wrong but Pentecostal Churches in general.

 The Rabbi’s are quite surprised the interpretation the “Christians” have on this matter of sexual immorality. 


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:23/06/2010 11:11 PMCopy HTML


Not even the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees had an accusation of “Fornication” against Mary and Joseph when Mary was pregnant with Jesus as no crime had been committed in the OT Law.

 

But if Joseph and Mary attended RCI they would have been expelled from the “church”.  

prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:24/06/2010 1:06 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest


Not even the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees had an accusation of “Fornication” against Mary and Joseph when Mary was pregnant with Jesus as no crime had been committed in the OT Law.

 

But if Joseph and Mary attended RCI they would have been expelled from the “church”.  


I once asked an ex grc member what he thinks Noel would do if Jesus stepped down from heaven and explained where Noel was getting things wrong. His response was "But no your wrong, it says here in my King James Bible.......". Funny I could imigine that happening.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/07/2010 7:03 AMCopy HTML

 Miss interpret?

Is that the daughter of Mrs Interpret? 

There are far too many stupid people on this forum.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:18/01/2011 11:34 PMCopy HTML

I normally do not take much notice of the negativity and abuse on this site so I seldom log on. However what you have written on your post fits exactly with scripture and gives me some relief on what I suffered through Revival centres some 25 years ago when I left. I must point out now that I still believe in Christ, now married (for 18 years) with a wonderful wife and family but have moved on.

I had only been going to RCI for 2 years after receiving the Holy Spirit at the time I was baptised and attended the Young People’s Group and meetings most meetings on Tuesday, Thursday’s and Sundays with my Mother. I was so passionate about Christ and was completely dedicated to all things in the RCI (before I broke a “Guide line”). I was 16 years old and had “illegally” (according to RCI guide lines as we had to be 17 years old)  formed a relationship with a 15 year old after getting to know each other through Young People’s group. When our young people’s Captain found out about this we were told to separate, not to hold hands etc. This seemed very strange to me as all we had done as far as I could see was fallen in love over a period of time. As much as I wanted to obey the “rules” I could not, so we saw each other behind the back of RCI. Our parents seemed a little confused about the “rules” and allowed the relationship to continue out of “church”. To cut things short our relationship got very intimate and I was removed from RCI when they found out. This was a very difficult time for me as I did not believe I had done anything but had just fallen in love and would have got engaged and married my girl friend at some stage if given the guidance and opportunity. But what had happened was the relationship became strained and bitter with her parents so the relationship became impossible much to my and I am sure also, her broken heart and disappointment.

I have moved on and in a great marriage now (as Christ still blesses us) but things could have been different if RCI followed the scriptures rather than condemnation.

After reading your Post I also agree and see how the “Church” should have handled the situation. Guidance into an engagement and marriage was the answer and not rules and regulations that divide and separate. The way RCI handles the situation caused me and all involved such grief. My only hope and contentment was in the Word of God (as I see the scriptures the same as you do), in that maybe RCI had got it wrong (as they labelled me a “fornicator”) and that they followed the rule of man rather the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

 

Thank you for your Post;

In unity with you.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:18/01/2011 11:53 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Guest.

I'm not too sure who you were responding to, but there are several points that I'm hoping you would clarify for me.

To cut things short our relationship got very intimate and I was removed from RCI when they found out. This was a very difficult time for me as I did not believe I had done anything but had just fallen in love and would have got engaged and married my girl friend at some stage if given the guidance and opportunity. Are you suggesting that you didn't understand why being sexually 'intimate' with a girl whom you weren't married to was wrong, Scripturally?

I have moved on and in a great marriage now (as Christ still blesses us) but things could have been different if RCI followed the scriptures rather than condemnation. Okay, but could you please highlight which Scriptures you believe the RCI should have followed in your circumstance?

After reading your Post I also agree and see how the “Church” should have handled the situation. Guidance into an engagement and marriage was the answer and not rules and regulations that divide and separate. Again, could you please point out for me which Scriptures support this approach? The way RCI handles the situation caused me and all involved such grief. Do you think that your own actions might have been responsible for causing you grief as well, or does all the blame rest with the 'church'? My only hope and contentment was in the Word of God (as I see the scriptures the same as you do), in that maybe RCI had got it wrong (as they labelled me a “fornicator”) and that they followed the rule of man rather the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. Sure. But which Scriptures support your POV over and against the RCI's?

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:20/01/2011 5:17 AMCopy HTML

Hello Ian,

My response was to the first post from “Guest 12/6/10”

Maybe Ian you can show me through scripture where you get your interpretation from on “sexual immorality”, "what punishment was given to those that had sex before their marriage ceremony" and what you think “marriage” is?

Some couples may be able to contain their sexual desire and some may not before the marriage ceremony. There is no condemnation to those who cannot but they were to marry.

1 Cor 7 v 1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honourably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:20/01/2011 5:32 AMCopy HTML

Hello, Guest.

Maybe Ian you can show me through scripture where you get your interpretation from on “sexual immorality”, "what punishment was given to those that had sex before their marriage ceremony" and what you think “marriage” is? There's no need for me to do so again, given that I provided detailed responses to all of these questions when Robert Flanders first raised this nonsense so many months ago. Search through the threads and you'll find all the answers you've asked for.

Some couples may be able to contain their sexual desire and some may not before the marriage ceremony. There is no condemnation to those who cannot but they were to marry. Wrong. 1 Cor 7 v 1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring ... I really don't know which English version this is drawn from, or whether you arranged it yourself, but it's overly interpretative and misleading. There is nothing in the Greek grammar that suggests an 'action in progress' with respect to sexual immorality; rather, we find an affirmation from Paul ackowledging the reality that sexual immorality does occur. There is a significant difference in both emphasis and implication between the two. Importantly διὰ δὲ τὰς πορνείας ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω καὶ ἑκάστη τὸν ἴδιον ἄνδρα ἐχέτω is better translated, 'But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband', just as in the ESV. English translations such as this reinforces the emphasis that's contained in the Greek ...   each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honourably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning.

The passages that you partially quoted from 1 Corinthians 7:1 ff all relate to preventing sexual immorality from occurring, and that by taking a husband/wife in marriage. Crucially, they do not provide a remedial solution post the sin! In other words, they don't teach that marriage is somehow the 'fix' for 'jumping the conjugal gun'.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:21/01/2011 12:02 AMCopy HTML

Ian,

I could not find the thread of Robert Flanders but you have tried to answer the question I raised anyway.

The translation comes from NIV but in any case your version is ok also. When Paul said that “sexual immorality is occurring”, he had explained the type of immorality in his other letters to the Corinthians. The Corinthian’s were well known for their loose sexual moral behaviour.  Prostitution (1 Cor 6 v 16-18), Incest (1 Cor 5 v 1), sex with no commitment of marriage (whom were detected by the not shedding blood at consummation), homosexuality and adultery (1 Cor 6 v 9) These were the areas that the Corinthians were being tempted in and this is what Paul was referring to when referring to their sexual immorality.

Paul was actually telling the Corinthians to find an unattached woman in the Church to marry to satisfy their lust for sex. We also need to remember that marriage did not come from a marriage certificate from the Government but the marriage was consummated when the man lay with the woman and there was the shedding of blood by the woman. The Circumcision married a woman by actually bring them into their home/habitation lay with them and they became husband and wife. On many occasions there was a fiest or celebration on the marriage and legal contracts drawn up between tribes/parents regarding inheritance and dowry before or after sexual consummation.

Ian there is nowhere in the Bible that indicates Sexual Consummation between a man and woman was “sexual immorality” unless they committed adultery. If you have scriptures to show me otherwise then please do?

Guest.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:21/01/2011 12:38 AMCopy HTML

Good morning, Guest.

I could not find the thread of Robert Flanders but you have tried to answer the question I raised anyway. If you read back through this thread, you'll find a post from a person calling himself 'Bud'. In his post is a hyperlink to the original conversation introduced by Flanders. You'll discover that all the questions that you raised with me, were answered by me, to him. Further, in the 'Please Consider' section to this website there is an exegetical essay that I wrote on the RCI 'morals policy'. I commend it to you as well.

The translation comes from NIV but in any case your version is ok also. Thank you. Can I take it that you understand Greek well enough to make an informed judgment as to what constitutes an 'okay' translation? When Paul said that “sexual immorality is occurring”, he had explained the type of immorality in his other letters to the Corinthians. The Corinthian’s were well known for their loose sexual moral behaviour.  Prostitution (1 Cor 6 v 16-18), Incest (1 Cor 5 v 1), sex with no commitment of marriage (whom were detected by the not shedding blood at consummation), homosexuality and adultery (1 Cor 6 v 9) These were the areas that the Corinthians were being tempted in and this is what Paul was referring to when referring to their sexual immorality. Again, thank you. Please understand that I'm already very well acquainted with the subject matter, and then in detail.

Paul was actually telling the Corinthians to find an unattached woman in the Church to marry to satisfy their lust for sex. We also need to remember that marriage did not come from a marriage certificate from the Government but the marriage was consummated when the man lay with the woman and there was the shedding of blood by the woman. Wrong, completely wrong in fact. Paul was writing to a group of Christians living in a Roman colony, Corinth. Consequently, the Corinthian Christians were obliged to observe the Roman laws relating to marriage. Jewish Christians in the Roman Empire were granted a dispensation by virtue of the Jewish religion being viewed by Rome as a religio licita; consequently, they largely adhered to Jewish marriage customs. The gentile Christians, on the other hand, had no such dispensation. They were strictly bound to abiding by Roman marriage customs. Importantly, both Jewish and Roman customs involved a formal and public commitment ceremony, which was ratified by those having the legal authority to do so. Further, both Jewish and Roman subjects were required to tender a formal marriage license to the keeper of the polis archives. This was done for census and for citizenship pruposes. The Circumcision married a woman by actually bring them into their home/habitation lay with them and they became husband and wife. On many occasions there was a fiest or celebration on the marriage and legal contracts drawn up between tribes/parents regarding inheritance and dowry before or after sexual consummation. I recommend that you commit yourself to much greater study in this subject. In addition to primary sources such as the Jewish Mishna, Roman legal tractates and so forth, there are literally scores of books addressing issues such as marriage and family life in the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds. Taking some time to familiarise yourself with even a few of these will go a long way to correcting your mistaken views.

Ian there is nowhere in the Bible that indicates Sexual Consummation between a man and woman was “sexual immorality” unless they committed adultery. If you have scriptures to show me otherwise then please do? Again, please refer to the original thread I have pointed you to, as it is rather tedious for me to have to cover the same ground each time a 'new' poster raises an 'old' issue. In short, what you believe to be correct, isn't.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:22/01/2011 1:35 AMCopy HTML

Ian,

Still cannot find Flanders threads but anyway as I just do not have the time at the moment to locate them;

I have read thought some of the Jewish sites you suggested and there are many items on marriage that will debunk your theory on Immorality and marriage.

First of all Judaism considered refraining from marriage a sin as this lead to non Holy thinking and marriage was not withheld from any Jewish couple. Age of marriage was never a consideration even to those in their early teens if a couple were committed to one another.  

I do also believe that refraining from marriage is a sin and leads to non Holy thinking.

This question I ask you? When I was 16 and my girl friend was 15 should we have been given the opportunity to marry? This was never given to us as an option but only condemnation and attempts to force us apart. Ian, do you think it is a sin to withhold marriage to a couple committed to one another and in love?

Not all the Judaism sites would suggest sex before a marriage certificate was unacceptable. For example www.epigee.au accept young Jewish couples living together if they were committed to one another as husband and wife. However they do not accept casual sex with no commitment to one another.

Ian, regarding marriage; If Government laws do not allow a young couple to marry should a couple be allowed to live together as husband and wife?

Ian you still have not shown me precisely in the Bible where “sexual immorality” is sex before a marriage to a committed couple who are willing to get married. However I would agree that sex before marriage to a couple not committed to marriage would be “sexual immorality”.

Guest.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:22/01/2011 5:31 AMCopy HTML

Hi didilio folks, I never thought I'd see the day that 2 people would be debating the teachings of Flanders.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:22/01/2011 5:53 AMCopy HTML

Hello, Guest.

Still cannot find Flanders threads but anyway as I just do not have the time at the moment to locate them. I'm very surprised that you couldn't locate the post with the URL that I pointed you to, given that it's # 5 of this very thread. To spare you further pain, here is the link http://forum1.aimoo.com/revival/Revival-Doctrines-we-USED-TO-BELIEVE/RCI-Members-Consider-Fornication-doctrine-1-1026524.html

I have read thought some of the Jewish sites you suggested and there are many items on marriage that will debunk your theory on Immorality and marriage. First, I didn't suggest any Jewish websites; I recommended a variety of historic primary sources. References from the Second Temple period (i.e. the time that Jesus walked the earth), given that such was also largely the period when the bulk of the NT was written. Second, if you've found Jewish websites that you believe debunk my views on immorality and marriage, then the Judaism promoted by said sites certainly doesn't represent the conservative Judaism practised in the first century. If what you suggest is the case, then these websites would be promoting a rather liberal form of the modern Jewish religion.

First of all Judaism considered refraining from marriage a sin as this lead to non Holy thinking and marriage was not withheld from any Jewish couple. Age of marriage was never a consideration even to those in their early teens if a couple were committed to one another. I do also believe that refraining from marriage is a sin and leads to non Holy thinking. First, what makes you think I support ascetism? The issue that we've been discussing isn't whether or not marriage is a good thing, it's your mistaken views on how marriage occurs, when marriage occurs, and the reasons for marrying, more particularly with respect to the incorrect practices promoted by the RCI.

This question I ask you? When I was 16 and my girl friend was 15 should we have been given the opportunity to marry? This was never given to us as an option but only condemnation and attempts to force us apart. Ian, do you think it is a sin to withhold marriage to a couple committed to one another and in love? To respond to your first question, 'no', you shouldn't have been given the option to marry, as marriage at such young ages is illegal in Australia. To respond to your second question, have you ever heard of the expression, 'true love waits'? Lust, on the other hand, doesn't.

Not all the Judaism sites would suggest sex before a marriage certificate was unacceptable. For example www.epigee.au accept young Jewish couples living together if they were committed to one another as husband and wife. However they do not accept casual sex with no commitment to one another. The only 'epigee' website that I could find after a very quick 'Google' was a pregnancy resource page. Perhaps you might check the URL for the site that you had in mind, and post it again?

Ian, regarding marriage; If Government laws do not allow a young couple to marry should a couple be allowed to live together as husband and wife? You mean, should they be allowed to 'live in sin'? Whilst this isn't the best term, granted, it fundamentally describes the historic Christian perspective on co-habitation in a marriage-like state without the benefit of a legally enacted marriage. I think it fairly obvious that I wouldn't support such a move.

Ian you still have not shown me precisely in the Bible where “sexual immorality” is sex before a marriage to a committed couple who are willing to get married. However I would agree that sex before marriage to a couple not committed to marriage would be “sexual immorality”. And as I pointed out to you in an earlier post, I've addressed this matter in some detail in the original thread. Now that I've provided you with the URL, you can 'read-into' the earlier discussion. Once you've done so, I'll be happy to answer any questions that your research provokes. For now I'll state quite plainly that the principle meaning of the Greek word that was translated as 'fornication' in the KJV, πορνεία, is 'illicit sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage'. Your views on the subject, quite simply, are wrong.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #27
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:23/01/2011 4:48 AMCopy HTML

Ian,

Your focus is on RCI teaching on marriage.

I never heard any teaching by RCI on the Shedding of Blood by the Bride and the marriage certificate has little to do with marriage.

The “Spiritual” significance on the Shedding of Blood by the Wife, was that a sacrifice had been made by the Wife and a Covenant made to love, serve, bear children and be a companion to her Husband. The Husband likewise made the same Covenant  with the Wife to love, serve and be a companion to the Wife. This was the original plan by God with Adam and Eve before Satan entered into the picture.

There was no intended “marriage certificate” in the beginning but because of the transgression of man, ordnances’/covenants had to be written to remind them of their Covenant with God.  

Many “people” not understanding God’s Covenant with us and the significance of the Shedding of Blood, abuse their sexual desire getting involved in prostitution, adultery, homosexuality, casual sex etc. And unite themselves with another master/companion. The OT called this fornication, adultery, sexual immorality etc. When the term fornication, adultery, sexual immorality is used in the NT, this signified the same immorality as the OT, being united to another master/companion outside of Gods’ Covenant.

When the scriptures clearly state to “avoid sexual immorality, for every man to find a wife and every woman to find a husband” this was to stop their sexual lusts’ getting involved with another master/companion outside the Body of Christ, rather than finding a companion inside the Body of Christ. Our Covenant with God was to love and serve our spouse/wife or husband and this was to be our “marriage”.

Judaism understands this covenant and does not forbid marriage even to the point of saying “To refrain from marriage is a sin.” (to those that “burn with sexual  lust”)

“Government Laws” are Satan’s trap that RCI have fallen into and cannot fulfil scripture allowing to marry. But they rather try and separate what God has joined.

Ian, who do you follow, Government Law or Jesus Christ?

Ian,  try www.epigee.org, Judaism “Family Planning in the Jewish Religion.”

Guest.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:23/01/2011 4:57 AMCopy HTML

Guest,

Have you reviewed the previous discussion on the subjects of marriage and immorality according to early Jewish and Christian practices that I pointed you to (complete with URL)? Further, you've yet to respond to several questions that I posed earlier, which are germane to grasping a full-orbed understanding of this subject. Can I expect responses to these questions any time soon? Finally, are you open to having your perspective broadened, or are you going to keep on reiterating the same points over, and over?

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:25/01/2011 12:39 AMCopy HTML

If expelling fornicators for ever is true according to the Bible then:
1Cor. 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, (for ever?) if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no not eat". (for ever?) If a constant line of reasoning is to be maintained, then all committing any of the sins mentioned in vs.11 should be expelled for ever. Vs.13 " But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (For ever?)

Ian if that the above thread is what you are referring to, then I would point out to you that the “fornicators” Paul was referring to were explained in the other scriptures in Corinthians. And this was referring to prostitution, adultery, casual sex and incest. This was not referring to a couple committed to marriage.

If you are also saying that marriage constitutes a marriage contract and ceremony then I do not have any problem with that. But it is hypercritical to say that, and not allow the couple the opportunity to have a ceremony and/or marriage contract. Let alone give a couple guidance in this, which was what RCI did to us.

If my mentor was Rabbi Longfield, rather than Pasta Longfield then maybe things could have been different.

I would never condemn a couple who had not yet had a marriage certificate or a wedding ceremony not understanding their circumstance. They may be involved in some stupid situation where they were in a hypercritical organisation like RCI and were never given the opertunity to marry.

Your philosophy about “True love Waite’s” is also contrary to scripture. Judaism also recognises that refraining from marriage is a sin and I would also take this view. I can understand a couple having to wait a month or two for the marriage but not “forever” to a couple who craves for sexual intimacy. Holding hand lasts for a time then relationships move on.

 

Guest.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #30
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:25/01/2011 1:16 AMCopy HTML

Hello, Guest.

If expelling fornicators for ever is true according to the Bible then: 1Cor. 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, (for ever?) if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no not eat". (for ever?) If a constant line of reasoning is to be maintained, then all committing any of the sins mentioned in vs.11 should be expelled for ever. Vs.13 " But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (For ever?). Clearly you've not bothered to read the material of mine that I pointed you to as I don't support the RCI's concept of permanently expelling 'fornicators'. However, I do support the biblical mandate of breaking fellowship with unrepentant 'fornicators'. There is a difference between the two!

Ian if that the above thread is what you are referring to, then I would point out to you that the “fornicators” Paul was referring to were explained in the other scriptures in Corinthians. And this was referring to prostitution, adultery, casual sex and incest. This was not referring to a couple committed to marriage. Being 'committed' to a marriage does not a marriage make, and so you're missing the point. Again. I previously explained to you the proper meaning of the Greek term translated 'fornication' in the KJV. Any sexual activity engaged in by a couple who are not married to each other is 'fornication'. And unrepentant 'fornicators' will not inherit eternal life (see, for example, Matthew 15:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:8, etc).

If you are also saying that marriage constitutes a marriage contract and ceremony then I do not have any problem with that. But it is hypercritical to say that, and not allow the couple the opportunity to have a ceremony and/or marriage contract. Let alone give a couple guidance in this, which was what RCI did to us. Given the circumstances that you described about your own case, the RCI had no choice. For them to do otherwise would have been illegal.

If my mentor was Rabbi Longfield, rather than Pasta Longfield then maybe things could have been different. Had you been more able to contain your lust, then your circumstances certainly would have been different. I do wonder though, whether or not you've paused and considered that applying your idiosyncratic interpretation to Scripture about this subject now condems you as an adulterer?! After all you entered into a 'marriage' through the 'shedding of blood' with your former girlfriend (who then became your 'wife'), but in spite of this you later legally married someone else, thereby commiting adultery! (And I suppose bigamy too, after a fashion)

I would never condemn a couple who had not yet had a marriage certificate or a wedding ceremony not understanding their circumstance. They may be involved in some stupid situation where they were in a hypercritical organisation like RCI and were never given the opertunity to marry. You might if you understood that they were engaging in activities expressly forbidden a Christian by Jesus Christ, his apostles, and the witness of Scripture. Just a thought.

Your philosophy about “True love Waite’s” is also contrary to scripture. Judaism also recognises that refraining from marriage is a sin and I would also take this view. Then you would be wrong. To begin with, Holy Writ says nothing about refraining from marriage being a sin, anywhere, so what you maintain clearly can't be 'contrary to Scripture'. Second, the apostle Paul actually commended celibacy as being preferable to marriage, a teaching that is found in Scripture, and as such it is scriptural! What I said was that 'true love waits' for marriage before engaging in conjugal relations. And this is exactly what the Jews of Jesus' day taught as well. Further, I didn't say that marriage was to be avoided, but sexual relations until the couple is married. Again, there is quite a significant difference between what you thought I said, and what I actually said. I'm left thinking you read the Bible in much the same way. I can understand a couple having to wait a month or two for the marriage but not “forever” to a couple who craves for sexual intimacy. Holding hand lasts for a time then relationships move on. Relationships 'move on' as you've described only when the couples involved lack the self-control and spiritual constancy necessary for a life that's lived according to scriptural principles. And intimacy itself isn't restricted to sexual expression, by the way.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:26/01/2011 3:22 AMCopy HTML

Ian, this is what you wrote:

For now I'll state quite plainly that the principle meaning of the Greek word that was translated as 'fornication' in the KJV, πορνεία, is 'illicit sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage'.

Ian, you stated above the meaning of “fornication”. You fall into the same delusion as RCI adding interpretations the Bible never speaks about and getting involved in the “Law” rather than common sense.

“Illicit sex outside the bounds of marriage’ was described in the scriptures and was to do with prostitution, homosexuality, incest, adultery and such like. These were all done “outside the body” of Jesus Christ (as described in 1 Cor 6 v 15-20). Finding a companion of the opposite sex in the Church, serving them, cherishing, them, being sexually intimate with them, being faithful to them, bearing children with them are “all in the bounds of marriage”. The scriptures you quoted; Matt 15:19, 1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:19, Eph 5:5, 1 Tim 1:8 etc were dealing with acts of prostitution, incest, adultery, homosexuality etc and nothing to do with a companion of the opposite sex within the church that you have formed an “intimate” relationship with.

And I never said that sexual intimacy was the only way to express intimacy. Our relationship also included other forms of intimacy; verbal communication, holding hands, hugs, kisses etc, and we were denied this as well, so our “intimacy” was done behind the back of our accusers. We were never given the opportunity to marry, were separated and it became impossible to continue our relationship.  YES this did cause adultery on both our parts, as I could see this a few years later when scriptures were revealed to me. But had RCI supported us in marriage rather than separate and condemn our relationship, adultery would not have happened.

Your idea of condemnation and abstinence is not scriptural and only separates a couple and causes adultery. This is why Paul said to avoid "fornication" let every man find a wife and every woman find a husband. Paul actually commended celibacy to some and to others that “burnt in passion for one another” were to marry. You act in the same manner as RCI believes and behaves using condemnation and separation.

You seem to be so focused on the Law and a marriage certificate rather than what a marriage actually is.

Knowing what I know now about scripture and marriage I would never separate a couple as the RCI do but let them to develop a relationship and live in marriage.

Mark 10 v 9, What God has joined together , let no man put asunder.

Government law is the seat of Satan. Ian, who do you follow, the Spirit of Christ or Government Law?

Guest.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:26/01/2011 4:39 AMCopy HTML

Just so that everyone is clear, the KJV states (1 Cor 7:8-9): I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 

Some versions add in italics things like, with passion or with lust, or with desire, but I've never been sure as to whether, in fact, these additional words are there to improve the readers understanding, or make the whole thing into something that was a little more palatable for the people preparing various the translations.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #33
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:26/01/2011 5:04 AMCopy HTML


Hello Guest

For your imformation I have dug out my BDAG Lexicon (Walter Bauer) which you may easily find in any good theological library or even a good university library. On page 854..

Porneia (which is a noun)

1) unlawful sexual intercourse, prostitution, unchastity,  fornication, 1Cor 5:1ab etc etc

2) participation in prohibited degrees of marriage, fornication 

3) immorality of a transcendent nature, fornication

And then there is the verb "porneuw" (unsanctioned sexual intercourse)

1) to engage in sexual immorality, engage in illicit sex, to fornicate, to whore etc

2) to engage in polytheistic cult, fornication  etc

You need to sharpen your research skills a little and discover in truth what type of people formed the churches that Paul addressed, that is Paul's intended audience since all his epistles or letters were really an aural correspondence designed to be read out aloud to a gathering. Hence the letters are rhetorical. The churches began with Jewish converts that later developed into gentile gatherings but nevertheless the Jewish nature of the gatherings would influence the general moral conduct of the church. In Judaism of the type that existed  at the time of the apostles and Jesus would be dictated by the Talmud which in essence is the oral tradition of the Jewish interpretation of the Torah (or law). Hence anything contrary to Torah (law) you could say is Un-Torah ( or un -lawful or if you like un TORAH - ful - savvy ??) ... Now it remains for you to go and do some research on how a Jewish marriage is conducted and recognized in order to make a marriage 'kosher' or lawful or torahful. Yes and then you will see that all marriages conducted back then were made with a solemn vow etc. Christian marriage is found in its origins from ancient Jewish custom and practice.



Blessings

Eric.

..
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #34
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:26/01/2011 5:22 AMCopy HTML

Guest,

Ian, this is what you wrote: For now I'll state quite plainly that the principle meaning of the Greek word that was translated as 'fornication' in the KJV, πορνεία, is 'illicit sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage'.

Ian, you stated above the meaning of “fornication”. You fall into the same delusion as RCI adding interpretations the Bible never speaks about and getting involved in the “Law” rather than common sense. Actually, I've fallen into no delusion, Revivalist or otherwise; I've simply provided you with the meaning of a key Greek word. Given that I understand Greek, and given that you don't, perhaps you should start listening to what I say?

“Illicit sex outside the bounds of marriage’ was described in the scriptures and was to do with prostitution, homosexuality, incest, adultery and such like. Ilicit sex outside the bounds of marriage is described by Scripture as more than just 'prostitution, homosexuality, incest and adultery'. It also includes sexual relations by people who are not married. These were all done “outside the body” of Jesus Christ (as described in 1 Cor 6 v 15-20). Finding a companion of the opposite sex in the Church, serving them, cherishing, them, being sexually intimate with them, being faithful to them, bearing children with them are “all in the bounds of marriage”. Are you aware that the historic Christian Church has never shared your very 'loose' interpretation of what constitutes marriage? Are you aware that the Christian Church inherited it's views of what marriage 'is' from Judaism? I previously provided you with a little historic context into the situation in Corinth at the time that Paul wrote his epistles. About what was required by the Roman legal system with respect to marriages transacted by Jews and non-Jews alike, et cetera. Can I ask, is there any reason that you've disregarded the record of history, apart from the fact that it doesn't support your views? Have you access to some primary source materials about which I'm unware? If so, lay them on the table, so to speak, so that we might consider them. The scriptures you quoted; Matt 15:19, 1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:19, Eph 5:5, 1 Tim 1:8 etc were dealing with acts of prostitution, incest, adultery, homosexuality etc and nothing to do with a companion of the opposite sex within the church that you have formed an “intimate” relationship with. The Scripture passages that I referred you to all dealt with the issue of πορνεία, which includes pre-marital sexual activity. You maintaing otherwise, and then in spite of the evidence to the contrary, won't change the facts.

And I never said that sexual intimacy was the only way to express intimacy. Our relationship also included other forms of intimacy; verbal communication, holding hands, hugs, kisses etc, and we were denied this as well, so our “intimacy” was done behind the back of our accusers. We were never given the opportunity to marry, were separated and it became impossible to continue our relationship. But when you reached the legal age needed to marry, just two short years later, it would've been possible to advance your relationship, would it not? But you didn't. Your 'true love' apparently wasn't constant enough, or real enough, to weather a short two years' of separation! YES this did cause adultery on both our parts, as I could see this a few years later when scriptures were revealed to me. But had RCI supported us in marriage rather than separate and condemn our relationship, adultery would not have happened. It's very easy and convenient to blame others, isn't it? We've seen quite a bit of this on the forum over the past few days. However, the fact is if you'd behaved in a Christian fashion to begin with, if you'd contained your lust as Scripture clearly requires, then you wouldn't now be a 'fornicator'.

Your idea of condemnation and abstinence is not scriptural and only separates a couple and causes adultery. My views on the subject are perfectly scriptural, actually, and they 'cause' nothing but sound Christian conduct. Your own opinions, however, are not. By-the-bye, the one thing that causes people to 'fornicate' (whether through pre-marital sex or adultery) is the lust of the people engaged in the fornication. In this instance responsibility for the sin is yours, and not the RCI's. This is why Paul said to avoid "fornication" let every man find a wife and every woman find a husband. I reckon you should start paying attention to how the words 'husband', 'wife' and 'marry' are used in Scripture. I also reckon you should start doing some research into the Jewish, Christian and pagan marriage customs of the first century. Paul actually commended celibacy to some and to others that “burnt in passion for one another” were to marry. You act in the same manner as RCI believes and behaves using condemnation and separation. All that I've done is asked you to justify your unbiblical views on this subject. To recap. I've pointed out a score or more errors in what you claim Scripture presents, plus further historical, cultural and religious facts, and yet you simply ignore them because you'd prefer to go on believing that you were wronged by the RCI! Clearly you've yet to repent of your original πορνεία, so according to Scripture you aren't going to inherit eternal life. Something to consider.

You seem to be so focused on the Law and a marriage certificate rather than what a marriage actually is. I'm focused on trying to help you see that your view of marriage actually isn't biblical.

Knowing what I know now about scripture and marriage I would never separate a couple as the RCI do but let them to develop a relationship and live in marriage. I'm sure you would. But then you don't know Scripture half as well as you think, and your theology of marriage is markedly deficient.

Mark 10 v 9, What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Government law is the seat of Satan. Ian, who do you follow, the Spirit of Christ or Government Law? Have you ever browsed Romans 13:1 through 4? Here it is for your edification: 'Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain!' I obey the law because I obey Christ.

In closing, if you choose to continue in the same vein as you have to date, then I can only assume your ignorance is wilful rather than simple. And I'm not particularly pre-disposed towards humoring the wilfully ignorant.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #35
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:26/01/2011 5:53 AMCopy HTML

Guest,

Just so that everyone is clear, the KJV states (1 Cor 7:8-9): I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Some versions add in italics things like, with passion or with lust, or with desire, but I've never been sure as to whether, in fact, these additional words are there to improve the readers understanding, or make the whole thing into something that was a little more palatable for the people preparing various the translations. To begin with, they're not 'additional words' as there's no such thing as one-to-one lexical correspondance between Greek and English. What it points to, however, is what results when translators adequately explain the force of a particular Greek word. The original text reads, εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἐγκρατεύονται, γαμησάτωσαν, κρεῖττον γάρ ἐστιν γαμῆσαι ἢ πυροῦσθαι. Which means, 'but if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion'. The Greek verb πυροω means 'to burn inwardly, with lust or passion', hence the fact that so many translations include such terms. 

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #36
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:26/01/2011 6:31 AMCopy HTML

Guest,
I have been following this topic with interest as it does apply similarly to my situation, having sex outside of marriage and had more than one wife in my life. (Oh my! What does one do?)

 

I also have done much pontificating on this subject but through much reading and researching (and praying) have seen what Ian is presenting here is true.

If one considers the word ‘Illicit’ as in sexual activity or sexual immorality, I believe, what the Corinthian passages show us, is more to do with behaviour in the community than with God’s judgment on the issue, but that’s my pov. Of course God’s command is clear about these things as with all manner of sin mankind commits.

A trend is to pull bits and pieces out of scripture and highlight it more so over the others making it a “worse” sin than any other. 

But is the act of ‘sexual penetration’, which is committed under any circumstances outside of marriage an unforgivable sin?  I don’t see it any more a serious matter than all manner of sin.

We know the RCI “unforgiveness” doctrine is not at all scriptural.

 

Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins, there is nothing we can do or say to justify our “short comings”. If we don’t have a correct understanding of scripture we must not try to justify ourselves this way, it is sin. Repenting and asking for forgiveness then walking upright in Jesus is a good start.

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #37
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:26/01/2011 6:47 PMCopy HTML

Wow, Ian. Your reply to this guest is bordering on the spiritually abusive. Because he doesn't know Greek then he must listen to your answer? Are you for real?

You appear to be completely overlooking the entirely valid points that this Guest has made in favour of impressing everyone with your own knowledge of an ancient tongue.

How very legalistic and pharisaical. One reason the Reformation began was because people were fed up with the Church assuming authority over them by not allowing Bibles to be read in their own languages. Telling this person that unless he believes your interpretation of the Greek and everything else you say about this matter, then he doesn't think properly in theological terms is just wrong.

A supportive environment, really?
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #38
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:26/01/2011 7:02 PMCopy HTML

Guest - the points Ian appears to have overlooked.

Yes, a supposed church like these claim to be has absolutely no right in assuming authority over individuals and the relationships that they form with other people in that group/church, unless of course that relationship is destructive or abusive to one or other of the individuals concerned, then the church should deal with and/or possibly expel the wrongdoer.

A matter of a boy meets girl should be dealt with by the individuals concerned and the parents, if they are still of that kind of age.

It seems that you perhaps regret the possibilities that a life with this other person in your former church may have given you. It can't be easy to think that such people and their authoritarianism got in the way of what could have been a very happy and loving relationship for you.

But this surely highlights the destructive capacities of these kind of cults and how they are capable of hurting and controlling people in ways that are entirely unrelated to Scripture and how God would have a church behave.

I'd like to emphasis, despite certain others input here, that the problems lie with this cult and NOT you.

I'm glad that you are happily married now. And I hope you are in a much better church.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #39
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 1:47 AMCopy HTML


Eric,

The information you have from the BDAG concerning “fornication” or “sexual immorality” I do not have a problem with. Again I say this to you, the same as I have written to Ian. The Bible and your concordance explained the meaning. At no time does the meaning suggest that “fornication” or “sexual immorality” had anything to with a couple in an intimate sexual relationship before a marriage contract/certificate as long as they were committed to marriage.

If you believe otherwise, then show me clearly which Scriptures or Lexicon you are referring to?

If you are saying that marriages are conducted by a vow then I do not have a problem with that either. To me a vow can as simple as; the couple publically recognise that they are committed to each other for life and will serve one another in love and companionship.

As Ian is so interested in obeying Australian Law or Customs (as he seems to understand law rather than being led by the Spirit) then it would not be against the “Law or Custom,” for the couple to have sex a “Marriage Certificate” and obtain one latter.

Some years ago I when I was in Fiji I came across a Christian couple who were living as husband and wife with a young child who had not yet been “legally” married. As inquisitive of the matter as what I had been through in the past, I asked some questions. The problem was that the couple had a sexual relationship before the actual ceremony and was found out when it was discovered that the woman was pregnant. The male took up his responsibilities’ as a husband to care for “wife”. The reason they had not yet had an official wedding was because the “Husband” had not yet paid the dowry, being two pigs. The “Husband” was at the time busily working in the market garden to earn money to look after his “Wife” and to buy the pigs, so he could have his wedding. At no time did the village or would I condemn the “Husband or Wife” or call what they did “fornication” or “sexual immorality” as they were committed to “Marriage.”

On another occasion I was talking to my Mother about the “fornication” issue, as she no longer shares the same views as RCI (or Ian). At my Mother’s present Church there were some new African Immigrants (I think maybe from Somalia) and there was an engaged Christian couple living together who had not yet been married. They were quite open to say that they shared a bed and engaged in sexual relations. On investigation it was found that the traditions of the Christian Church in Africa that this was ok to live as husband and wife when you were engaged and have a “Wedding” at a later time, as the village would have a communal wedding at a particular time of year. But as they were forced from their village because of a war they did not get their wedding but was to be arranged at a later date in Australia. Again I would not consider their relationship “immoral” or “fornication” as they were committed to each other.

Guest.


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #40
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 1:52 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

Guest - the points Ian appears to have overlooked.
Yes, a supposed church like these claim to be has absolutely no right ...
I'd like to emphasis, despite certain others input here, that the problems lie with this cult and NOT you.
I'm glad that you are happily married now. And I hope you are in a much better church.

Hello Guest,

I absolutely agree the when boy meets girl that this should be dealt with by the individuals concerned and the parents. This was happening with us and our relationship was being encouraged and supported by the parents. There was no hostility or confusion whatsoever until “oversight’ became involved and tried to separate us. This is what led to confusion by what I believe the warped views and rules of RCI. If the RCI had kept out of the situation then our relationship could have ended in marriage if all kept the “Faith”.

Incidentally I do believe what had happened was a Demonic spirit/influence that RCI is under. I do not blame any individual in RCI as I was ignorant of God’s Word as well and were all deceived by the “enemy”.  

There is no regret from the past on my behalf as this has only strengthened my walk with Christ. My hope is that all concerned have grown though this situation and have not fallen into Satan’s trap.

I am aware of some others that have replied to my posts like to point their fingers at individuals in a condemning way but like you I will be patient.

Guest.


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #41
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 2:02 AMCopy HTML

Hello Guest,

I am not quite sure about your past relationship on “having sex outside of marriage” and whether you were committed to marriage with them or not.  But I do believe some “people” have sex with no commitment to marriage which I do believe is “illicit” on the other hand I do not believe on the other hand that ALL, “sex outside of marriage” is “illicit” if there is a marriage at some stage. If you look at my reply to Eric this may clarify this somewhat.

Yes, I also believe because of our ignorance on the Word of God we can all sin yet we have forgiveness through Christ with repentance.

Guest.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #42
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 2:17 AMCopy HTML

Robert,

Unfortunately for you the position that you claim is supported by Scripture isn't, so I challenge you to present even a single biblical passage that demonstrates marriage to be about 'intent' rather than 'act'. Quite simply πορνεία, or 'fornication' if you prefer, includes pre-marital sexual activity (that is, any sexual activity that takes place before a marriage is transacted) of the sort you admitted to engaging in, and which you've subsequently and repeatedly attempted to justify. Further, marriage in first century Jewish, Christian and Greco-Roman pagan contexts was understood as comprising of: (1) a public declaration that was legally binding; (2) a marriage ceremony that was presided over by a legally recognised celebrant; and, (3) which resulted in a marriage licence being duly presented to a city's officials for registration purposes. Nothing that you've offered in your defence matches a single one of these preconditions, consequently, yours is a private opinion; one which departs from Scriptural, historical, cultural and social Christian contexts, and as such is neither convincing to, nor binding upon, any informed Christian.

Time to rethink your errors, and consider their consequences.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #43
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 7:41 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

Reply to Guest

Reply to Guest



Guest.

Do you understand the terminology "SIN" ?? ... and how do you deal with this term "SIN" ?? and what is your solution to the problem of "SIN" ??.

Ian went to great effort to explain "unrepentant fornication" and keeping company with "unrepentant fornicators" and you have overlook this key statement that is carefully contained within his highly focused posts..

The 21st century worldview may like to view "illicit sex" as "having an affair" to make it all sound good but sin is still sin ...

Blessings

Eric the Viking.

..
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #44
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 7:58 AMCopy HTML

Ian I will answer your questions below.

But when you reached the legal age needed to marry, just two short years later, it would've been possible to advance your relationship, would it not? But you didn't. Your 'true love' apparently wasn't constant enough, or real enough, to weather a short two years' of separation!

Before RCI got involved and separated us, I had a great relationship with the parents of my girl friend. We had being going together 10 months behind RCI’s back. The parents constantly joked about us getting married.  That never seemed a problem with us. But when RCI got involved when they found out that our relationship had become sexually intimate we were both removed from RCI. However I tried to continue the relationship with my girlfriend with the intent of marriage but the parents had turned nasty not allowing me to see my girlfriend. It was as if Satan had entered their home and was not a nice place to be. I tried to talk to my girl friend but she could say nothing to me in response. It was not out of the question to be married at that time as I found out latter, as marriage could have been approved through a court with the parents’ permission or in my case parent, as my Dad had died some years earlier from alcoholic abuse. I would have never gone to court anyway as Mum had just enough money to pay her bills. I had been working in a supermarket since I was fourteen and had some money in the bank would have been better spent between my girlfriend and I.

The separation had broken my heart but to continue the relationship was impossible. This situation did not seem right to me as I thought Jesus would not do this or let me down but He had another plan for me.. And He didn’t as I found my perfect wife latter on.

I do believe RCI or the parents should not have separated us, allowed an engagement and married us at a time suitable to all but as it turned out God had another plan and maybe because the Parent's could not brake the grip of RCI.

Guest.

 

Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #45
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 9:56 AMCopy HTML

Guest, 47#

 

What I believe your advocating here is because of the emotion and love you have for each other justifies having intimate relationship contrary to God’s command.

 

I am not going to go into personal details here as it is now no body else’s business.

 

Supposing a couple, met through a “church” and fell extremely in "love" which each other, one already in a unstable marriage situation not yet divorced, the other never married. Even though deep down they felt it ok to be intimate they fell victim to their sexual urges and desires for one another. If so, why would that be any more of a sin than what you are presenting. What ever labels one puts to it, love on the one side, fornication/adultery on the other, is still the same. 

I’m sorry; sin is sin which ever way you look at it.

 

The thing now to consider; what will be the outcome of all this, will it bring hell and damnation on those two or has the Lord made a way of escape?

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #46
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 10:06 AMCopy HTML

Good evening, Mr Flanders.

Let's see if I understand what you're saying properly. First, you and your girlfriend were victims of your lust, and 'fornicated'; but covertly mind you, because you didn't want the RCI pastors to find out. But they did find out, and when they did, you became a victim of their rigid stance on 'fornication'. Of course, you wanted to marry your underaged girlfriend, because you believed that marriage 'cancels' out the biblical sin of 'fornication'. But your former girlfriend's parents wouldn't let you, so you became a victim of their ignorance and intolerance. And because your former girlfriend was underaged, you needed both her parent's permission to marry, because she was under 18, and the government's permission, because she was also under 16. So in addition to being a victim of your lust, a victim of the rigid RCI, and a victim of the ignorance and intolerance of your former girlfriend's parents, you were also a victim of the uncaring 'seat of Satan', which is how I think you described the Australian government in an earlier post. Maybe you thought you'd be able to wait a couple of years until both you and your girlfriend were old enough to get married legally. But by that time, you were a victim of your family's impoverished circumstances. So if my math is correct, you were a victim of: (1) your lust; (2) the RCI's rigid policies on morality; (3) your former girlfriend's ignorant and intolerant parents; (4) the Australian government, sitting in for Satan; and (5) poverty. Wow! You've really had a 'raw deal' in all of this, haven't you? Five times the victim!

Let's progress. According to you if a couple plans on getting married, then 'fornicating' isn't actually 'fornication'. But if the couple doesn't get married, does what they did then become 'fornication'? If it doesn't, because the intent to marry was there, what happens if either party 'fornicates' later with someone else? Would it be considered 'fornication' if they intended to marry the next person? But what if they didn't marry that second person? What if they keep repeating this behaviour ad infintum? Now, in addition to this 'buggar's muddle', we need to also consider your peculiar theory that 'marriage' takes place when the girl's hymen is broken. But what if the girl wasn't a virgin, and hence there was 'no shedding of blood'? Is the marriage legitimate under such circumstances? And what if a person 'fornicates' with a virgin, thereby having the necessary 'blood offering', but then marries someone else? According to your 'theology', that person becomes an adulterer! It seems to me to be very much case of 'damned if you don't; damned if you do!' Of course, Scripture mandates that should a man divorce his wife, then he must provide her with a 'bill of divorce' (see Deuteronomy 24). This enables her to legally marry again, without fear of commiting adultery. The hundred dollar question becomes: did you provide your former girlfriend/'wife', with whom you 'fornicated' and entered into a 'blood covenant' 'marriage' relationship, a 'bill of divorce'? If you didn't, and if your 'theology' is correct, then according to Scripture you're still married, and therefore a bigamist, and therefore in a peck of trouble with God!

I'm a simple person and this all seems very, very complex to me. Personally, I think the way Scripture approaches the subject of marriage is much less convaluted, and far clearer.

You're wrong, and you continue to be unrepentant of the fact.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #47
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 10:59 AMCopy HTML

But when RCI got involved when they found out that our relationship had become sexually intimate we were both removed from RCI. However I tried to continue the relationship with my girlfriend with the intent of marriage but the parents had turned nasty not allowing me to see my girlfriend.

Man, I WISH the parents of my then girlfriend had the balls to not allow me to see her after we got sprung for fornication. Instead they sadly agreed to 'Pastor' Brad's instruction to let us both get married at the age of 17. Her parents were idiots. My parents were idiots. Brad was a complete and utter idiot. And 'I' was an idiot too. And yeah... she was an idiot too.

The whole situation, and their 'culty' beliefs are altogether 'idiotic', if you'll excuse the overuse of the word.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #48
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 11:00 AMCopy HTML

  1.  That was your friendly neighborhood Moth, not logged in.
"But when RCI got involved when they found out that our relationship had become sexually intimate we were both removed from RCI. However I tried to continue the relationship with my girlfriend with the intent of marriage but the parents had turned nasty not allowing me to see my girlfriend."

Man, I WISH the parents of my then girlfriend had the balls to not allow me to see her after we got sprung for fornication. Instead they sadly agreed to 'Pastor' Brad's instruction to let us both get married at the age of 17. Her parents were idiots. My parents were idiots. Brad was a complete and utter idiot. And 'I' was an idiot too. And yeah... she was also an idiot.

The whole situation, and their 'culty' beliefs are altogether 'idiotic', if you'll excuse the overuse of the word.

But then hey, I would have never gone down the roads I did and ended up partnered with the amazing woman I share my life with today.

Bygones 'fate'.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #49
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 1:10 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Guest,

Unfortunately for you the position that you claim is supported by Scripture isn't, so I challenge you to present even a single biblical passage that demonstrates marriage to be about 'intent' rather than 'act'. Quite simply πορνεία, or 'fornication' if you prefer, includes pre-marital sexual activity (that is, any sexual activity that takes place before a marriage is transacted) of the sort you admitted to engaging in, and which you've subsequently and repeatedly attempted to justify. Further, marriage in first century Jewish, Christian and Greco-Roman pagan contexts was understood as comprising of: (1) a public declaration that was legally binding; (2) a marriage ceremony that was presided over by a legally recognised celebrant; and, (3) which resulted in a marriage licence being duly presented to a city's officials for registration purposes. Nothing that you've offered in your defence matches a single one of these preconditions, consequently, yours is a private opinion; one which departs from Scriptural, historical, cultural and social Christian contexts, and as such is neither convincing to, nor binding upon, any informed Christian.

Time to rethink your errors, and consider their consequences.

Ian


Ian, your Lexicon states that “fornication” is “unlawful sex’. You are so focused on pointless matters of man’s law to grasp the understanding of your Lexicon.

The answer is simple. Go into the OT and study “God’s Law” about sex and you will see what is “Lawful” and what is “unlawful” Duet 22 would be good start.

Guest.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #50
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:27/01/2011 2:27 PMCopy HTML

Robert,

Ian, your Lexicon states that “fornication” is “unlawful sex’. You are so focused on pointless matters of man’s law to grasp the understanding of your Lexicon. That's a mildly amusing claim given that (1) I've spent my time focusing on God's law, as clearly recorded in his Bible; (2) a lexicon defines word meanings according to their actual usage; and (3) it's not me who is trying his darndest to make excuses, and to avoid accepting personal responibility for his sin. Always the victim.

For the past few days I've demonstrated that what you believe about the matter simply isn't biblical (or credible) so repeating, 'you're a legalist' over and over, won't change the facts one iota. Further, I've indulgently humoured you up to a point, hoping that you were teachable, all the while providing you with ample material for reflection. But you've conclusively established that you're not teachable, and neither are you the least bit interested in having your faulty understanding corrected. Consequently, I don't intend humouring you any longer, or wasting any more of my time attempting to reason with what the Bible aptly describes as 'a fool'. Your blood be upon your head.

Goose.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.