Vent your frustration here

quote:

---

Dear heart, I've gotta go with Mirriam Webster's definition. That's what It's meant ever since I first heard of the word, how it's been defined by every church I've ever been in and the only application of it I knew of before encountering your rendering of it.

---

Since fornication is an old French word, let's throw it out since the Bible is not a French origination and address my point.Since Christians are taught that they are no longer under the Jewish Laws and Jesus said that the grestest commandments sum up the law and the prophets; then whatever we hold in front of us to judge whether moral or not should be judged according to the greatest commandments.Does a loving relationship between two people prevent the individuals from loving God or loving others as stated in the greatest commandments?The civil and religious laws change over time. Marriage laws have changed over time. Christian weddings don't resemble the ancient Hebrew weddings.Civlization isn't stagnant. Customs and laws are continually readdressed to see if they still serve their intended purpose.That's why I said we need to understand the original purpose as much as possible to understand what was intended by the OT laws to know whether they are still viable today.I don't see that the laws in the OT or NT speak against two consenting adults having sex within a loving relationship. I say consenting because in ancient times, women didn't always get that option in various cultures.I don't see that a loving relationship between two people prevents the individuals from loving God or loving others as stated in the greatest commandments?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

---