Exodus 22:16-17: "pre-marital sex" = the beginning of marriage?

[Man_in_the_Middle]

You said it correctly; it is a consensual relationship and she is claimed. That is what gives the right for the sex. If she doesn't consent, it's rape not a marriage. She wasn't his so he had no right for sex and raping her doesn't change it. Blessings

If I consent to be someones indentured servant for 7 years, and move onto their land and begin service to them, does that negate the indentured servitude I was already participating in? Say I was in year 3 of a 7 year servitude and an offer was made by someone else to take me as their indentured servant. I consent and move to the new location. Is it valid just because I consented? What about the rights of the one whom I was already indentured to? This seems like theft to me.

 

[MemeFan]

If I consent to be someones indentured servant for 7 years, and move onto their land and begin service to them, does that negate the indentured servitude I was already participating in? Say I was in year 3 of a 7 year servitude and an offer was made by someone else to take me as their indentured servant. I consent and move to the new location. Is it valid just because I consented? What about the rights of the one whom I was already indentured to? This seems like theft to me.

It depends. You are too focused on contract, rather than reality.

If you do 7 years of work in 3 years, you can claim that you did your contract. Or maybe you are duch bad worker that employer is glad to rid of you.

By the way, nobody can forbid yoi to change your mind rather. In another word, your current self can't bind your future self since otherwise it's breaking of your will by force. That's breaking of consent and therefore immoral.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

By the way, nobody can forbid yoi to change your mind rather. In another word, your current self can't bind your future self since otherwise it's breaking of your will by force. That's breaking of consent and therefore immoral.

This is the precise purpose of contracts. People do change their minds but the contract they are bound by prevents them from altering the premise of the contract. This is literally binding your future self to what your current self believes is right.

That is not immoral in any way. Breaking the contract later is what is usually called immoral....

 

[Victorious]

When my woman spreads her lags I go back to Genesis 15 sometimes. Abraham divided the animals in two as part of making a covenant with Most High.
Virgin or not, the imagery connects. But this MUST be paired (pun) with intention. If Tamar had not become pregnant by the road, I doubt Judah would have taken her home to care for her. And he certainly didn't consider himself as establishing a marriage there at the wayside. I cannot describe what being one flesh means when a prostitute is sought, but clearly marriage is composed of intentional commitment in both parties AND a consummation.
If you cannot unmarry a woman by just sending her out, then you are not married by just bringing her in. If that worked, Then a scoundrel could end your marriage by stealing your wife, and adultery wouldn't exist. (Just typing out loud).

 

[Mojo]

In my opinion, if the boyfriend doesn’t want to “put a ring on it” it’s fornication.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight anymore. I lean “sex does not equal marriage” but I can clearly see the other side’s point.

I would just stray away from using such a loaded term that is very vague and seems to lack any English equivalency.

I can’t say for certain, but I generally see formication referring back to Torah rules and regulations on sexual matters. If it’s not described there, it’s not a sin, no matter how distasteful we may find it in our culture.

 

[steve]

I don’t really have a dog in this fight anymore. I lean “sex does not equal marriage” but I can clearly see the other side’s point.

I would just stray away from using such a loaded term that is very vague and seems to lack any English equivalency.

I can’t say for certain, but I generally see formication referring back to Torah rules and regulations on sexual matters. If it’s not described there, it’s not a sin, no matter how distasteful we may find it in our culture.

Would you prefer “illicit sex”?

 

[steve]

If it’s not described there, it’s not a sin,

This was addressed earlier.

 

[steve]

Provide arguments against my thesis. Calling it Pharisicial is same as Democrat calling it racist. You can put more substance bevause you are smart enough for that.

Some things I just don’t feel are worth bothering with.

 

[The Revolting Man]

That’s fair. And I’ll wait for someone smarter than me to produce it.
But saying that it doesn’t exist because we don’t have a finite definition is unacceptable.

I guess I should have been more explicit, not only is it not defined, it’s not listed. Formication is a category of sin, not an individual sin. That’s why it is the only sin listed in Acts 15 as being unacceptable for membership in the church. The apostles weren’t forbidding sec before marriage ( a concept itself that is not as explicit in the text as we would like) but rather the category of sexual sin entirely.

Thinking that fornication is “sex before marriage” would mean that every other sexual sin was permitted by the apostles and only the category of unsanctioned heterosexual sex was being regulated. It’s a claim that raises ire questions than jt answers.

 

[The Revolting Man]

By betrothal,

1) No one considered Dinah Shechm's woman post sex, they did consider him fornicating with her though, then agreed to intermarry.

2) Mary is divorcable by Joseph pre sex.

3) A raped woman is not the rapists, unless the father allows it.

4-6) And if she is already betrothed it is adultery, if she is in the city and doesnt scream it applies to both parties, if she does, then only the rapist is guilty. If she is in the country it only applies to the rapist.

6 scriptural references all contradicting sex = marriage. Betrothal (Aras) is pre Marriage (chathan), which is pre sex (Shakab see Mary above). Sex equaling marriage effectively invalidates fornication as a concept, because if sex alone = marriage you are left with only 2 outcomes, marriage or adultery. Please provide counter scripture.

I actually have a 7th reference, Exodus 21:1-6, again deals with the master giving the slave a wife. The male slave cannot take her from his master, she is the masters to give and her and any offspring remain the masters.

But if the slave had a wife to begin with she belongs to the slave. If a man lays with a slave woman who is betrothed to another that is a violation, though its punishment is not akin to adultery, nor its it called adultery, but its still fornication, as she is another mans, but she is not free.

Again we see the violation is based on her betrothal status, not her ownership status, nor her sex status.

8th! Note even with a warbride there is a procedure to be completed before she is a valid wife, you cannot just sex her down.

So what qualifies as a valid betrothal?

 

[MemeFan]

This is the precise purpose of contracts. People do change their minds but the contract they are bound by prevents them from altering the premise of the contract. This is literally binding your future self to what your current self believes is right.

That is not immoral in any way. Breaking the contract later is what is usually called immoral....

From when slavery is morally acceptable idea?

What makes consent consent is existence of free will which is direct control of your body. Which has one remarkable property. You can never give control over your body even if you want.

That's way you can never give possibility of leaving deal. And they can be lots of reason why to give up. For job example, taking care of sick family member, moving away etc.... So there is reason why to keep flexibility leaving?

And what is slave? Person who can't decide what he will do with his body because he is under threat of force.

When employee decides to leave current employer and state forces him to work at unwanted employer because contract, then employee is slave during his work time.

Financial penalties for leaving contract are morally OK.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

From when slavery is morally acceptable idea?

What makes consent consent is existence of free will which is direct control of your body. Which has one remarkable property. You can never give control over your body even if you want.

That's way you can never give possibility of leaving deal. And they can be lots of reason why to give up. For job example, taking care of sick family member, moving away etc.... So there is reason why to keep flexibility leaving?

And what is slave? Person who can't decide what he will do with his body because he is under threat of force.

When employee decides to leave current employer and state forces him to work at unwanted employer because contract, then employee is slave during his work time.

Financial penalties for leaving contract are morally OK.

Do you still hold to the bible as our basis for morality??
Is God moral?

Consider this passage governing slave owners.

Laws About Slaves
Exo 21:1 And these are the judgments which you shall put before them:
Exo 21:2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Exo 21:3 If he comes in with his body, he shall go out with his body. If he was the husband of a wife, his wife shall go out with him.
Exo 21:4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears sons or daughters to him, the wife and her children shall belong to her master; and he shall go out with his body.
Exo 21:5 And if the slave truly says, I love my master, my wife and my children; I do not desire to go out free,
Exo 21:6 his master shall bring him to Elohim, and one shall bring him to the door, or to the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.


Now, I referred to this as indentured servitude earlier but in reality it is more like slavery the way we think of slavery. And if the slave chose the option given to him in verse 6, he is binding himself for the rest of his life.

This was God's design, not mine... Is God moral?

 

[Mojo]

Do you still hold to the bible as our basis for morality??
Is God moral?

This was God's design, not mine... Is God moral?

Indeed, human morality is not infallible.
Slavery/servitude falls under this.

We can’t add or take away from scripture in our ideas of sexual relations or economic matters. We can look for guidance, not to edit.

 

[MemeFan]

Do you still hold to the bible as our basis for morality??
Is God moral?

Consider this passage governing slave owners.

Laws About Slaves
Exo 21:1 And these are the judgments which you shall put before them:
Exo 21:2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Exo 21:3 If he comes in with his body, he shall go out with his body. If he was the husband of a wife, his wife shall go out with him.
Exo 21:4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears sons or daughters to him, the wife and her children shall belong to her master; and he shall go out with his body.
Exo 21:5 And if the slave truly says, I love my master, my wife and my children; I do not desire to go out free,
Exo 21:6 his master shall bring him to Elohim, and one shall bring him to the door, or to the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.


Now, I referred to this as indentured servitude earlier but in reality it is more like slavery the way we think of slavery. And if the slave chose the option given to him in verse 6, he is binding himself for the rest of his life.

This was God's design, not mine... Is God moral?

Are you even Christian, dear brother?

Does Lord shows His infinite Love toward us by chaining us, collaring us and putting Infinite works on our back?


*Heavy sarcam usage

 

[MemeFan]

By betrothal,

1) No one considered Dinah Shechm's woman post sex, they did consider him fornicating with her though, then agreed to intermarry.

2) Mary is divorcable by Joseph pre sex.

3) A raped woman is not the rapists, unless the father allows it.

4-6) And if she is already betrothed it is adultery, if she is in the city and doesnt scream it applies to both parties, if she does, then only the rapist is guilty. If she is in the country it only applies to the rapist.

6 scriptural references all contradicting sex = marriage. Betrothal (Aras) is pre Marriage (chathan), which is pre sex (Shakab see Mary above). Sex equaling marriage effectively invalidates fornication as a concept, because if sex alone = marriage you are left with only 2 outcomes, marriage or adultery. Please provide counter scripture.

I actually have a 7th reference, Exodus 21:1-6, again deals with the master giving the slave a wife. The male slave cannot take her from his master, she is the masters to give and her and any offspring remain the masters.

But if the slave had a wife to begin with she belongs to the slave. If a man lays with a slave woman who is betrothed to another that is a violation, though its punishment is not akin to adultery, nor its it called adultery, but its still fornication, as she is another mans, but she is not free.

Again we see the violation is based on her betrothal status, not her ownership status, nor her sex status.

8th! Note even with a warbride there is a procedure to be completed before she is a valid wife, you cannot just sex her down.

Probably will answer next weekend. I'm short with time now.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Are you even Christian, dear brother?

Does Lord shows His infinite Love toward us by chaining us, collaring us and putting Infinite works on our back?


*Heavy sarcam usage

I apologize, the sarcasm is lost on me this time...

I will submit more scripture though that indicates that we are to be as slaves to the messiah.

Bondservants and Masters
Eph 6:5 Slaves, obey your masters according to flesh, with reverence and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to Messiah;
Eph 6:6 not with eye service as hypocrites, but as slaves of Messiah doing the will of our Master from the heart,
Eph 6:7 serving as slaves with good will to our Master, and not as to men,
Eph 6:8 each one knowing that whatever good thing he does, this he shall receive from the Master, whether he is a slave or a freeman.
Eph 6:9 And masters, do the same things toward them, forgiving their faults, knowing that the Master of you and of them is in Heaven, and there is no respecter of persons with Him.

In this passage, he is saying that the slaves of men need to serve their masters as if they were serving the Messiah and that the masters of men need to treat their slaves well as they ALSO have a master, the master in heaven above who will judge them in the end...

So, I do not see in scripture that God denounces all slavery. I do see that he denounces man stealing... But that is the taking of a free man without cause.

 

[steve]

Indeed, human morality is not infallible.
Slavery/servitude falls under this.

We can’t add or take away from scripture in our ideas of sexual relations or economic matters. We can look for guidance, not to edit.

Do you prefer our present system of incarceration (a form of slavery that produces nothing) to Yah’s servanthood for criminals?

 

[Mojo]

Do you prefer our present system of incarceration (a form of slavery that produces nothing) to Yah’s servanthood for criminals?

And institutional slavery called the IRS.

 

[Mojo]

Do you prefer our present system of incarceration (a form of slavery that produces nothing) to Yah’s servanthood for criminals?

I’m not sure how to read this comment. I hope my original post came across clearly. I don’t claim slavery is immoral. Human morality may say it is, but God doesn’t. His economics allow for it for various reasons that modern westerners find unacceptable. Slavery exists in many forms and we hardly blink.

 

[steve]

I’m not sure how to read this comment. I hope my original post came across clearly. I don’t claim slavery is immoral. Human morality may say it is, but God doesn’t. His economics allow for it for various reasons that modern westerners find unacceptable. Slavery exists in many forms and we hardly blink.

I was trying to clarify your statement and you kinda sorta did.