Fornication, Faulty Sexuality
                                               It's Boundaries and Characteristics
                                                                  Article dS

           Following are several Scriptures regarding fornication;      dS-1

           (1 Thes 4:3-4) "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 That
    every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;"      dS-2

           (Acts 15:19-20) "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned
    to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things
    strangled, and from blood."      dS-3

           (Eph 5:3) "But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh
    saints;"      dS-4

           (Col 3:5) 'Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection,
    evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:"      dS-5

           Considering how the above Scriptures so strongly rebuke fornication, and considering that other Scriptures strongly
    rebuke faulty sexual restrictions and even classify them with the doctrines of Devils, obviously finding the right road
    regarding sexuality is important.  Yet how many really care enough about this subject to carefully research it, or to stand
    out or be shamed because of it?      dS-6

           The word fornication as used in the Scriptures can pertain to any kind of sexual error.  Regarding what is
    fornication or what is not fornication, what made one guilty of fornication in old times in Israel, as compared to what
    makes one guilty of fornication in the Christian era?  How much did the dimensions or boundaries of fornication change
    between the old and new era, or did they change at all?  Some erring early Christians were very negative about sexuality
    of any kind and spoke of sex in marriage as the common disgrace that marriage involves.  These condemned those who
    remarried after their partner died as adulterers (thus also fornicators), although in ancient Israel Godly men had
    numerous wives and concubines without being guilty of fornication.  What a difference!  These erring Christian teachers
    advocated sexuality in marriage should be confined strictly to honest childbearing efforts, thus largely making marriage a
    place of temptation rather than blessing.  These were opposed to women doing anything to be attractive, and even taught
    women's faces should be veiled, and although the beauty of woman was honored and enhanced in ancient times in
    Israel.  This negative sexual emphasis progressed till it in due time totally disallowed marriage among church elders, and
    while Apostle Paul classified disallowing marriage with the doctrines of Devils (1 Tim 4:1-3).  Considering how
    erroneous the sexual emphasis of these early Christians was, a proper concept about fornication clearly cannot be in
    agreement with their emphasis, but must be in alignment with God's sexual standards as in ancient Israel or any changes
    Christ might have instigated.  Although fornication obviously is evil, yet it is also very wrong to wrongly forbid
    appropriate sexual blessings.  God created male and female and sexuality to be a great blessing to humanity.  Yet
    obviously man can misuse and abuse this creation and harm one another with it, which faulty behavior obviously is
    fornication.      dS-7

           Although the Scriptures clearly teach Christians need to refrain from fornication, yet what is fornication and who is
    really defining what fornication is in our day?  Is it the real Bible standard, or is it those influenced by the early yet erring
    Christians spoken of above?  The largest Christian Church on earth today still does not allow marriage for their elders.  
    Now should we think those many elders who have deprived themselves all their lives of a possible desire for a wife, and
    who feel they have done a great service thereby, would be ready to believe that the deprival they lived in was not
    ordained of God and that it rather is based on the doctrines of men and possibly Devils.  Some of these elders might
    almost strive to death, defending that their deprival was a necessary and important virtue they lived by, and which
    feelings can be significantly understood.  No one wants to learn that something they thought was special about
    themselves, actually was vain.       dS-8

           Is it not quite impressive that God allowed Godly men in ancient Israel to have numerous wives, and now these
    elders cannot even have one?  The fact that Apostle Paul spoke of marriage being honorable in all, and classified
    disallowing marriage with the doctrines of devils, makes this restriction even more impressive.  Concerning the issue of
    elders in Israel having numerous wives, in ancient Israel God ordered that the enemy males of rebellious nations should
    be slain, but not the women, which contributed to an abundance of women in their society as well as to much potential
    for polygamy (Deu 20:10-17, 21:10-13).  God speaking to David concerning his wives said, "And I gave thee thy
    master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had
    been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.  (2 Sam 12:8).       dS-10

           Concerning the unusual situation of polygamy (which yet was not at all unusual in old times), the main New
    Testament Scriptures that are understood as opposing polygamy are Scriptures which are focused on elders.  According
    to the Greek these Scriptures demand that elders are a "one woman man" (1 Tim 3:2&12, Tit 1:6).  Another expression
    quite similar to the expression "a one woman man" would be "a one job man " which term would mean a steady and
    dependable man who don't jump from job to job.  Yet that term would not need to mean the man had only one job in
    his life time, or need to mean he never held down two part time jobs at the same time.  Paul obviously did not want men
    to be chosen as elders who were unfaithful to and changing wives.  Some Biblical translations of Paul's requirements of
    elders, simply demand men that are faithful in marriage, yet other Biblical translations oppositely demand men who have
    only had one wife in their life time, and thus these translations even disallow remarriage for elders if their mate dies.  
    What a difference in those translations!  Where is truth in these discrepancies about marriage and sexuality?       dS-11

           Concerning divorce and remarriage, God's laws regarding such are not intended to keep people bound in an evil
    place, but are to prevent people from getting into an evil place or getting others into such a place.  Yet the faulty sexual
    emphasis of those who disallowed marriage and largely disallowed sexuality in marriage, also was very opposed to any
    divorces and remarriages, and although Jesus clearly allowed it in appropriate situations.  Apostle Paul said the letter of
    the law kills, while the spirit or intent of the law gives life.  Many Christians because of man's erroneous sexual
    emphasis, and because of applying the letter of the law, have used God's marital laws which are intended to promote
    secure partners and families, in a manner as does the opposite of their intent and cruelly disrupts partners and families.  
    It also is note worthy that in the ancient Jewish society, where it was not unusual to have two or more wives, divorce
    and remarriage had a totally different perspective than among our society, since husbands then would marry another
    without divorce necessarily being related to doing so.       dS-12

           Although the subject of feminine appearance might seem somewhat unrelated to the subject of fornication, yet it
    very much can relate to it.  Feminine appearance relates to both sexuality and fornication, as a male obviously can be
    affected by feminine appearance in either a good or evil manner.  Further those early Christians who were very wrongly
    restrictive about marriage and sexuality, also were wrongly apposed to appreciating feminine appearance, but rather
    wanted women's faces veiled.  The writer's mother who was a conservative Amish girl in her youth, spoke of young
    conservative Amish girls yet taking some kind of plant and rubbing it on their faces to enhance the color of their facial
    skin.  Yet many conservative Christians feel it is a great error for a woman to use any professional things to enhance the
    color of their facial skin or their lips.  Yet some of these will still put great efforts into professionally having very white
    teeth and will spend thousands of dollars on braces for their girl's teeth to improve teeth that already are quite neatly in
    order.  Although their religious laws intentionally obstruct woman's beauty, these still will spend very much effort and
    money trying to be as beautiful as possible within their laws.  Further, although Isaiah 3:24 portrays that Jewish women
    normally had well set hair, although Apostle Paul spoke of woman's long hair being both a glory and a covering to her
    which is a shame to cut or shave off, and although Paul according to the Greek said it is given instead of a veil, yet
    many conservative religious ones zealously make sure women's long hair is neither a glory or a covering as Paul spoke
    of it being.  Further many religious men among these, will needlessly cover their heads although Paul advocated men
    should be uncovered in the same way he advocated women should be covered.  It is sad that some Bible translations
    even basically teach the opposite on this subject and adding to the confusion.  What is truth in these discrepancies?       

           Just like religious elders that have deprived themselves all their lives of marriage believing they are doing a great
    and necessary service to God, might become angry at the one who would try to tell them otherwise, so other
    conservative ones who have deprived themselves in other ways because of faulty restrictions might become angry at the
    one who would try to reveal their deprival was not ordained of God.  False religions throughout history have tried to
    appease God by destroying or depriving themselves of what they might like best, and even depriving themselves of those
    things which God created to be enjoyed.  Some heathen religions in this effort burned their own children to their idols
    imagining they were appeasing God.  Imagine trying to tell these, that their sacrifice was foolish and vain!  No wonder
    Old Testament Prophets sometimes were put to death by these kind of people, as they tried to instruct them in a better
    way.  How many conservative religious people today have the same traits of those who killed those prophets?       dS-14

           Some heathen religions in their self chosen deprivations also veiled their women's faces insomuch they could only
    see with one eye, and which oppressive veiling Paul likely was rebuking when he said woman's long hair is both a glory
    and a necessary covering to her and given instead of a veil.  Some heathen religions also had vestal virgins as a special
    part of their religion, and were trying to appease God by restricting marriage and advocating celibacy, which practices
    found their way into early Christianity.  Yet the Scriptures often advocate we are not saved by our own works, and
    speak of God's laws as laws of protection and liberty.  Although the Scriptures very much are against fornication, they
    still are also very much against faulty sexual restrictions.  William Tyndale's translation of Col 2:20-23 reads, "Wherefore
    if ye be dead with Christ from ordinances of the world, why as though ye yet lived in the world, are ye led with
    traditions of them that say Touch not, taste not, handle not? which all perish with the using of them and are after the
    commandments and doctrines of men, which things have the similitude of wisdom in chosen holiness and humbleness,
    and in that they spare not the body, and do the flesh no worship unto his need.". (Col 2:20-23).  I believe the Greek
    could nicely be translated as "If dead with Christ from the traditions of the world, why as living in the world are you
    taken up with the rules of men.  Such as don't touch, neither taste, neither feel, which all are to failure and corruption in
    keeping, being in accordance with the commandments and teaching of men. Which teachings and commandments are
    indeed the words of the wisdom of a self chosen religion and humility of mind, and harsh treatment of the body, not in
    any respect toward satisfying the flesh."  How does this Scripture relate to both sexual release in marriage as well as to
    solo orgasms?  1 Corinthians 12:22-25 reads, "Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more
    feeble, are necessary: 23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow
    more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.  24 For our comely parts have no
    need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: 25 That
    there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another."  It is note
    worthy that no Scripture particularly addresses or disallows the first sexual thing that offers itself to man as he matures,
    and which is the most available to man, although sexual errors normally are clearly and often reproved in the Scriptures.  
    In man's religious teachings against solo orgasms, people sometimes were told they might go blind and grow hair on their
    palms if they released their sexual pressures in that manner, which claims quite obviously are a lie.  Do not such claims
    about solo orgasms very much relate to the false religious emphasis which even opposed sexuality in marriage?   What is
    truth in these matters?       dS-15

           Three determining factors that should help us understand what fornication really is and what it is not are; firstly
    any sexual behavior that is clearly spoken against in the Scriptures is fornication, secondly any sexual behavior that
    transgresses against and harms another is fornication, thirdly sexual behavior that is excessive, or unnatural and
    perverted is fornication.  Appropriate sexuality is not damaging or harmful but rather is encouraging and invigorating.  
    Psalms 19:5-6 reads, "Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
    6 ...there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."  Yet in fornication one might harm his own body by his sexual behavior.  
    Paul speaking of such writes, "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth
    fornication sinneth against his own body."  (1 Cor 6:18).  Sexual diseases often accompany fornication and possibly such
    is a little of what Paul here had in mind.  Emotional distresses and pressures often also accompany fornication, as
    fornication often involves loose and insecure sex and sexual companions, rather than a sex and love life of decency and
    order.  Although fornication obviously is not a good sexual state, yet it neither is a good state when people in following
    man's sexual laws, and which Apostle Paul might call the doctrine of devils, also are in a deprived and difficult sexual
    state.        dS-16

           It is interesting that most Scriptures that use the word bride happen to be speaking of her adorning herself or of
    special joys because of her.  The Apocrypha Bible speaking of this beauty reads, "The beauty of a woman cheereth the
    countenance, and a man loveth nothing better" (Ecc of Sir 36:22).  This special beauty caused David while  lamenting
    Saul's death to say, "Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on
    ornaments of gold upon your apparel."(1 Sam 1:24).  The Song of Solomon even honorably and verbally expresses a
    very revealing feminine display, which some Christians might classify as verbal pornography, and which situation even
    appears involved some kind of dance.  Queen Esther spent a whole year becoming attractive for the King.  What did
    that preparation all involve?  2 Samuel 6:20&23 makes some very surprising statements in the Greek reading, "...and
    Michel the daughter of Saul went to meet David, and greeted him and said,  How glorious was the King of Israel today,
    who uncovered today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, like as uncovering uncovereth one of the dancers.  21
    And David answered Michel, before the Lord I danced, ...and I will uncover yet as this, and I will be useless in your
    eyes, and with the maids, which you spoke of I will be honored."  David here while dancing or preparing to dance must
    have uncovered himself in a manner that Michal did not think was honorable for her prestigious husband the King of
    Israel to here have done, although some dancers or dances were known for a particular uncovering.  Although Michal
    rebuked David as this, quite obviously David here did not do anything he felt was evil before His God, as he here was in
    the process of moving the special Ark of the Covenant, while even further shortly before this time Uzzah was slain for
    his misconduct in moving this very Ark, and thus David would naturally have been extra careful with his behavior.  Yet
    Michal did make quite a comment in her accusation to David saying, "who uncovered today in the eyes of the maids of
    his servants, like as uncovering uncovereth one of the dancers"?  David further made quite a statement in his reply
    saying "before the Lord I danced, ...and I will uncover yet as this, and I will be useless in your eyes, and with the maids,
    which you spoke of I will be honored."       dS-17

           For some reason nudity was not thought of as incredible in ancient Israel as it is by many in our day.  In ancient
    Israel the prophets sometimes significantly stripped (possibly to portray hardships), which stripping King David was well
    aware of.  King Saul did this stripping together with the prophets, when he came to seek David at Naioth in Ramah (1
    Sam 19:24).  Famous Prophet Isaiah appears to even have prophesied totally nude for three years as a sign of upcoming
    hardships (Isaiah 20:2-4).  I would like to again ask, who really is defining what fornication is in our day?  Is it the
    Scriptures, or is it those who are effected by the erroneous teachings of erring early Christendom?  Their false emphasis
    against marriage, sexuality and beauty in general, has caused humanity a tremendous injustice.  May we not only flea
    fornication, but may we also flea that false anti sex emphasis which Paul classified as the doctrine of Devils.  Who is
    concerned enough about this subject to research it, and concerned enough to stand out because of it?  It appears many
    rather want to evade the subject.  The writer has taken a real beating from conservative ones regarding this subject.  
    Note, "BiblicalSexuality.net" speaks much more about the issues spoken of in this short article.  The writer has had
    many supernatural things happen in his life regarding this subject, which encouraged researching it, and he still has many
    questions about this important subject, and desires to become settled in the truth regarding it.       dS-18

    06152007   3186