sex before marriage

13»

Comments

  • But the wife was a pleasure?

    God said "It is good that man is not alone" so he made eve.. why would He say that? wasn't paradise full of the presence of God? God should have been enough for adam..



  • [coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]

    [quote author=mikeforjesus link=topic=5582.msg79947#msg79947 date=1196665902]
    But the wife was a pleasure?

    God said "It is good that man is not alone" so he made eve.. why would He say that? wasn't paradise full of the presence of God? God should have been enough for adam..


    This shows us the unlimited love God has for us.  It is true that God should have been enough for Adam, and, as far as we know, He was enough.  However, as the verse you post says, God, out of His love for mankind says, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner."  He created us as social beings, full of love which is a reflection of His love.  Think about it, the Trinity has always been in existence.  There has never been a time when one person of the Trinity did not exist.  The existence of the Trinity is an existence of love.  Love, true love, is not satisfied or realized fully unless it is shared.  Now, of course, each person of the Trinity loves each other.  But the Love of God is a creative love, and He wanted to share His love not only within Himself, but He wanted to express it outwardly, which is why He created everything; the crown of His creation being mankind.  Man, being created in the image and likeness of God, is filled with and reflects the Love of God.  Since the Love of God is not satisfied unless it is shared, God not only wanted man to share this love with Him, but with someone equal to him.  This is why, I think, God created woman for man, so that man could share this love with someone who was his equal, his partner.
  • Dear Κηφᾶς,

    You return refreshed, clearly, because that last post was one of the best.

    The existence of the Trinity is an existence of love.  Love, true love, is not satisfied or realized fully unless it is shared.  Now, of course, each person of the Trinity loves each other.  But the Love of God is a creative love, and He wanted to share His love not only within Himself, but He wanted to express it outwardly, which is why He created everything; the crown of His creation being mankind.  Man, being created in the image and likeness of God, is filled with and reflects the Love of God.  Since the Love of God is not satisfied unless it is shared, God not only wanted man to share this love with Him, but with someone equal to him.  This is why, I think, God created woman for man, so that man could share this love with someone who was his equal, his partner.

    By oneself, man's great temptation is to selfishness, true love demands a selflessness that is a reflection of the love which the Lord has for His creation. Marriage is a relationship that demands a degree of self-sacrifice and caring which brings out the best part of us. When we have a wife or husband and children to care for, we have to leave the selfish cocoon of our concentration on our own wishes and address those of others; this is good for us.

    As ever, Our Heavenly Father knows what is best for us.

    Some, of course, have the calling to chastity and asceticism which demand their own sacrifices.

    In Christ,

    Anglian
  • [quote author=mikeforjesus link=topic=5582.msg79947#msg79947 date=1196665902]
    But the wife was a pleasure?

    God said "It is good that man is not alone" so he made eve.. why would He say that? wasn't paradise full of the presence of God? God should have been enough for adam..







    Mike for Jesus,
    About God being enough for Adam...
    i was listening to a sermon by Sayedna Bishop Youssef of US
    He said Adam didnt feel complete with God because he was incompatible, for God is Spirit and Adam is body and spirit.
    So God created woman (who is also incompatible, with man) to teach us how to be compatible with him.
  • I agree that God may have created woman as man's equal so that they both can love one another and thus share this wonderful thing called love.
    But I don't understand why God wasn't enough for Adam, I mean you say it's because they are not compatible so he created a woman who is also not compatible with god but compatibe with Adam since they were both from flesh, while God was in spirit.
    But God created humans in his own image and likeness, ie he gave us an eternal spirit so that we could understand Him more and love Him more. So why incompatible? and this implies that people have to be married to feel love, which is not true because you can feel the love of God anywhere, whether you're a monk, a nun or wife or husband.

    So can someone please clarify the part about God and humans being incompatible?

    Thanks in advance, and God bless you all.
  • They are incompatible because God is Spirit alone, while we are spirit and body, yea we have a spirit, but also we have a body and this body makes us incompatible with God.

    I hope thats helps, if it doesnt tell me and ill try to explain it another way of ask my priest for clarifications.

    God Bless and i hope this helped.
  • preach the word in season and out of season for the time is coming when certain people might heap up false teachers.. (you have heard of the abomination of desolation spoken of by daniel standing in the church of God by daniel).. understand what I mean by "preach in and out of season.. do not misunderstand.. Not all are required to preach.. ."May the LORD give you understanding in all things" 

    Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.
  • EXO 20:14  "You shall not commit adultery.

    22:16  "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and
    sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

    17  If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay
    the bride-price for virgins.
  • [quote author=+marmar+ link=topic=5582.msg114249#msg114249 date=1273437975]
    EXO 20:14  "You shall not commit adultery.

    22:16  "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and
    sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

    17  If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay
    the bride-price for virgins.



    Does that mean that today, if you lose your virginity, you should marry the person whom you lost it to?? Is that what this means??
  • "Repentance makes virgins out of adulterers" - Saint John Saba
  • The Bible refers to premartial relationships as Fornication.Fornication is a grave sin.No amount of argument would alter its meaning nor is it  open to any interpretation.

    In Matthew 15:19-20,Jesus says:

    "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

    Read also 1 Corinithiians to find out more on this Sin.For example St Paul says:

    "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)

    The above passage is very clear when it says that if unmarried people can't control their passions, then they should get married.St Paul didn't recommend that people should relieve their passion by having premarital sex,but by either exercising self-control or get married. There are only 2 options to this issue.

    God's commandments are for all eternity.They do not change with human development,time or society.

    Purity and virginity are the christian values before marriage!!!
  • [quote author=Stavro link=topic=5582.msg77988#msg77988 date=1191649155]

    The Coptic Orthodox Church rule is:

    Previous relations that involved intercourse have to be disclosed to the spouse-to-be and if no discontent with the situation surfaces, the sacrament of matrimony is consumed. Failure to do so before marriage can lead to annullment upheld by the Church should problems related to this situation appear.

    source?
  • Personally I don't see that such a view would be scriptural. Our Lord suggests that a divorce might be allowed - but not required - for adultery only. It seems to me that we marry our partners as they are, and must live with them as they are, just as they must live with us as we are. We should not expect a perfect partner. What if a partner has commited some sexual sin in the past - as is likely if the person was not brought up as a Christian but was converted? We are taught that baptism is a new birth. Is this not the case for an adult convert? And what if the partner has been sexually well behaved - though being a virgin in body is not the same as being a virgin in the heart - but has been a glutton or liar all his or her life? Is this a cause for annulment and why would it not be?

    There is a need for some openness because without openness and trust there is no basis for partnership, but it does not seem to me that a requirement that the partner be perfect is scriptural, and seems to me to be liable to produce self-righteousness.

    I have only done THIS, but you have done THAT.

    In God's eyes we have all sinned, and all sin deserves death.

    Father Peter
  • consider your body a product. (it sounds alot worse than i mean it haha)
    your "product" has a price
    consider a husband a consumer.
    virgin= new
    non-virgin= used

    what happens to new products once they are used?? their value goes down.

    a car instantly loses about $7000 in value once it is driven off the lot

    by having sex, you are driving yourself off the lot, you are depreciating your value to a potential husband.

    you were new, you are now used.

    who would pay the same price for a used car that they would for a new car??

    MEN WANT VIRGINS.
  • Dear AikotiEnsok,

    Thanks for illustrating how some people really do think about marriage. The way you have put it helps us see how shocking it is.

    I would say that the point of view which you describe some people as holding - which I can understand some cultures might consider very important - is not Christian. I find it sad to be reminded that some cultures think like this. It is not Christian.

    Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ paid the price of his incarnation, life and death on the cross for each one of us. We are all 'used goods'. Yet he considered the price which was required, a price worth more than all of the universe and everything in it, to be worth paying.

    We should never think of a fellow human being whom God loves enough to die for as 'used goods'.

    To think of people in terms of monetary value, and to think of sin as making them worth less to us, is so far removed from the Gospel.  We have lied, we have become drunk, we have been greedy. In all of these things we deserve the judgement of death, yet we hide these death-deserving  sins from ourselves and only consider the sins of others. It is we who should consider that we are not worthy of marrying anyone because of our hidden and secret sins, rather than that we should judge others. To have looked on a man or woman, boy or girl, with lust is THE SAME as having committed fornication. There are therefore a great many of us who are guilty of fornication in the eyes of our Lord. 

    "who would pay the same price for a used car that they would for a new car??"

    Our Lord did! Indeed he paid a far greater price for an absolutely ruined and useless car.

    I have to say that if anyone thinks a husband is a consumer (and there are cultures that do) then they should never get married. If anyone demands a virgin then they are a hypocrite and a worse sinner than the woman they deprecate.

    Father Peter
  • Father Peter, I fully agree with you.

    It is a common dilemma with everybody when deciding to engage in Holy Matrimony.
    The Lord has bought us with a very high price and if Almighty God has forgiven us our sins who exactly are we to act otherwise or to deny his Love for us?

    Yet the golden rule is to behave and to decide to sin no more.

    AND remember THIS for judgment day:
    "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.
    Save us from the time of trial, and deliver us from evil."

    To make it clearer it's written in all languages:
    http://www.prayer.su/other/all-languages.html

    GBU
  • [quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=5582.msg115051#msg115051 date=1275638143]
    Dear AikotiEnsok,

    Thanks for illustrating how some people really do think about marriage. The way you have put it helps us see how shocking it is.

    I would say that the point of view which you describe some people as holding - which I can understand some cultures might consider very important - is not Christian. I find it sad to be reminded that some cultures think like this. It is not Christian.

    Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ paid the price of his incarnation, life and death on the cross for each one of us. We are all 'used goods'. Yet he considered the price which was required, a price worth more than all of the universe and everything in it, to be worth paying.

    We should never think of a fellow human being whom God loves enough to die for as 'used goods'.

    To think of people in terms of monetary value, and to think of sin as making them worth less to us, is so far removed from the Gospel.  We have lied, we have become drunk, we have been greedy. In all of these things we deserve the judgement of death, yet we hide these death-deserving  sins from ourselves and only consider the sins of others. It is we who should consider that we are not worthy of marrying anyone because of our hidden and secret sins, rather than that we should judge others. To have looked on a man or woman, boy or girl, with lust is THE SAME as having committed fornication. There are therefore a great many of us who are guilty of fornication in the eyes of our Lord. 

    "who would pay the same price for a used car that they would for a new car??"

    Our Lord did! Indeed he paid a far greater price for an absolutely ruined and useless car.

    I have to say that if anyone thinks a husband is a consumer (and there are cultures that do) then they should never get married. If anyone demands a virgin then they are a hypocrite and a worse sinner than the woman they deprecate.

    Father Peter


    Gosh! What an answer Fr. Peter. Thank you.

    Let's add meat to the skeleton that Fr. Peter has just outlined here from what we've been discussing before in tasbeha.org.

    "What God has made clean, do not call unclean or common" (Acts)

    So, this would apply in such a situation: Who are we to call anyone unclean/depreciated-in-value/ etc AFTER they have been baptised (if they didnt know God) or repentaed? After baptism (or repentance), they have been made "clean". Their sins have been forgiven, and they have been clothed in a garment of righteousness. You cannot look at them as if they are still unclean.

    Secondly, I understand Aikoti what you are saying - but marriage isn't about marrying a virgin. Marriage is about God. Its a sacrament. Therefore, you cannot go into it thinking this way. It is unchristian. There would be NO difference between you and a muslim. In Islam, non virgins are soiled property.

    If marriage is about God, then the spirit in which it has to be entered with must be Godly, and therefore, by virtue of that reason alone, what you are saying, Aikoti, is unchristian. You must think of marriage as a sacrament always; not in terms of possession.

    We can all philosophize day and night about forgiveness, how Christ makes the prostitute into a virgin, how Christ is enduring, how His Mercy endures forever, how His Love abounds forever, but ultimately its all hypocrisy if we do not live it. We live when we apply these Godly attributes to our lives: As Christ has now made clean someone, then who are we to call them "Unclean".

    Is this me just talking from my own perspective, unbiblically???

    It is quite a remarkable thing isn't it? To see someone how God sees them. Its beyond our logic. But the Bible clearly tells us that we'll feel this way, and its wrong.

    The Bible tells us in the story of the prodigal son that it was the eldest brother that could not come to terms with the unfairness of treating his younger brother with such love and forgiveness.
    It is the Bible that tells us of the story of the workers of the 11th hour who earned the same amount of wage as those who had been working in the field ALL the entire day.

    God knows how we think. And how we think, our logic, is not His logic. Our ways are not His ways. But you must decide that if you are a Christian, and you see marriage as a sacrament, you must begin to live in God's ways.

    Sin devalues us. All sin; but as we are lifted and purified from our state of sin through God's Grace, we must also treat others accordingly.  If you still call someone or see them as "unclean" - this is very much self righteousness. It is the self righteousness of the eldest brother of the prodigal son. It is a condition that we prefer to avoid. We prefer to have the events of the prodigal son, not his brother; for the youngest brother's fault led him back to Christ. The eldest brother's sin was self righteousness, and we are not sure of where this sin led him.

    The heavens rejoice when a sinner returns back to God, but we behave in a very strange way when this happens: we say: "Amen! That's great. Before you slept with 100's of men, and now u are a virgin" - but in our hearts, they are still unclean. How can that be?

    In Islam, virginity is so important because they see each other as the way you do. The highest percentage of hymen replacement operations in France is done by muslim north african women and middle eastern women. That's how THEY think.

    In Christianity, we live in Grace. We know that we are all sinners, and we know that whatever God has made clean, we CANNOT call it common.

    I was reading a muslim website, and they were talking about this problem also. Frankly speaking, it was just stupid. PLAIN STUPID. They were saying: "There's other sexual things you can do other than having intercourse... and I do not want to have intercourse because afterwards its too late.".

    This is not how we think, this is not how we behave, and this mindset has nothing to do with Christianity either.
  • These are important posts from John and Zoxsasi.

    Let us all learn from them.

    What God has called clean let no-one call unclean.

    and

    Forgive us our sins as we forgive others (in the same way we forgive others)

    If we will not forgive others their sins then God will not forgive ours.

    Father Peter
  • [quote author=AikotiEnsok link=topic=5582.msg115044#msg115044 date=1275622295]
    consider your body a product. (it sounds alot worse than i mean it haha)
    your "product" has a price
    consider a husband a consumer.
    virgin= new
    non-virgin= used

    what happens to new products once they are used?? their value goes down.

    a car instantly loses about $7000 in value once it is driven off the lot

    by having sex, you are driving yourself off the lot, you are depreciating your value to a potential husband.

    you were new, you are now used.

    who would pay the same price for a used car that they would for a new car??

    You could always replace her engine...
  • father peter farrington,

    i apologize for the manner in which i chose to describe my point of view. i was just trying to relate to the fruit analogy stated at the beginning of this topic. i guess i should have thought it out more before i posted.

    thank you for helping me realize my mistake.

    pray for me please,

    chris
  • [quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=5582.msg115051#msg115051 date=1275638143]
    To have looked on a man or woman, boy or girl, with lust is THE SAME as having committed fornication.
    Father Peter

    Forgive me father but i really don't think you could label it "THE SAME".
    By that logic you could argue that all people might as well go fornicate and commit adultery if they look at the opposite sex with lust since the physical act of fornication is considered "THE SAME" as the lust of the heart. Who of us has not at one stage of their life looked with lust at the opposite sex? Who of the many monks,saints and desert fathers have also committed this sin? Should they have gone and and committed the physical act of fornication because they lusted in their hearts?

    Mat 5:28  But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    I think Christ chose his words very carefully by saying "HIS" heart and that he does not make mention at any point that lust of the heart and fornication are "THE SAME" sin.
    I believe that there is a BIG difference between the two.
    Lust of the heart is a sin which would involve only you, the physical act of fornication however will involve you and also the partner which you have also caused to sin. Which is why i don't think it would ever be considered "THE SAME".
    PPFM
  • Pi Onkh,

    Mat 5:28  But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Yes, of course it is not the same act. One is an act which is physical and the other is only mental. But they are the SAME SIN of fornication none the less. Our Lord is careful to say 'HAS ALREADY COMMITTED'. He says HAS ALREADY COMMITTED ADULTERY. It seems to me that he is very clear. We cannot excuse our lustful looks at others, they are the sin of fornication even if the physical opportunity to work out the sin is not present. 

    I don't understand what you mean by saying that if we are guilty of one sin we might as well go and commit another? Who would say that if they have a right relationship with God? The right response to all sin, whether committed in the mind or in action is repentance and seeking forgiveness. A great deal of the writings of the Desert Fathers is concerned with reprentance for sins committed in the mind. If someone dared to say, I have committed sin in my heart so I might as well go and do it in body, they are already far from God.

    It is entirely possible to be consumed with some sin in the mind only, while another person might fall once and commit the act itself only once. Which is worse? Who, in this context, is least the virgin?

    You rightly say,

    Who of us has not at one stage of their life looked with lust at the opposite sex?

    and this clearly shows why we should never deprecate any person who has fallen into sin, especially as in the context of this thread, to consider them used goods. A great many who have not committed the physical act of fornication have nevertheless committed it in their heart and are therefore guilty of the same sin, not the same act, but the same sin. What we desire in our hearts is THE SAME in terms of sin as if we did it. Sin is not a list of things we do, it is all to do with the direction of our will, and if we turn our heart and will from God then we have sinned already. Even a paralysed person can be living in sin every moment if their hearts and will turn towards sinful thoughts.

    May we all show mercy on others, and remember that we too are sinners.

    Father Peter
  • So many of the Desert Fathers speak about the sin of lust and mental fornication, and we can be sure that in most cases these thoughts of lust were not consummated with any woman since there were none in the desert. One narrative says...

    A certain brother, bound by the spirit of lust, made his way to a certain great old man and asked him, saying, ‘Show me kindness and pray for me, for I am harried by lust.’  So the old man entreated the Lord for him. And again coming to the old man, he told the same tale. And again the old man did not neglect to beseech the Lord for him, saying, ‘Lord, reveal to me whence cometh this devil's work in my brother. For I have prayed Thee for him, and he hath not yet found any peace.’ And the Lord revealed to him what was happening round about that brother. The old man saw him sitting and the spirit of lust beside him as it were sporting with him, and an Angel sent to his help was standing by, and indignant against that brother because he did not prostrate himself before God, but was as one delighting in his imaginations and his whole mind inclining to them. And the old man perceived that the fault was with the brother, and told him so, saying, ‘Thou dost consent to thine imagination.’ And he taught him how one must withstand such thoughts. And the brother, taking breath again by the old man's wisdom and prayer, found peace from his temptation.


    We can be sure that even though a lustful stare is the sin of fornication even though we have not had the opportunity to work it out in action, and even though this does mean that we sin often if we do not control our eyes and imagination, nevertheless God never leaves us without the help we need. There is always an angel standing at our side if we will turn to God.

    To notice a person is one thing, to look again with desire is something else. The one is blameless the other is sin. To be always occupied with the Jesus Prayer is a great help. To avert our eyes is another. To ask a blessing on the person we have stared at and to immediately ask for forgiveness for ourselves for our inattention is another. The heart that is always directed to God will not sin, and even when wavering will quickly turn like a compass needle to the true north of the soul. If we grow casual and lazy in the contrl of our eyes and imagination then we will find it heard to resist the enemy. In Christian spirituality there is no such thing as 'just looking'. To look with attention is already to desire and desire is already sin.

    On the flip side, this is why we should dress appropriately so that we do not lead others to sin.

    Father Peter
  • I have had this conversation with a few friends and their argument is "if its a sin either way, i would rather have the physical sin rather then the sin of the heart", not knowing that the physical sin does not only defile their temple but also the temple of the partner.
    I personally think it s a very dangerous view to have.
    Father, in your post you said: If someone dared to say, I have committed sin in my heart so I might as well go and do it in body, they are already far from God. What advice could you give me regarding changing that view in my friends mind?
    I agree with you 100% Father that sin of the heart and mind may eventually lead to the physical act.
    Here is a commentary by St John Chrysostom regarding this verse.....its amazing.(i can see why he is also called the Golden Mouth)  :) I also added another excellant commentary by Saint Chromatius.
    Chrysostom: For he did not simply say “whoever shall desire,” since it is possible for one to desire even when sitting alone in the mountains. Rather, Jesus said, “whoever looks with lust,” that is, one who thinks about another solely for the purpose of lusting, who, under no compulsion, allows the wild beast to intrude upon his thoughts when they are calm. This intrusion no longer comes from nature but from self-indulgence. The ancient Scripture corrects this from the first, saying, “Don’t gaze upon another’s beauty.”1 And then, so that no one should say, if I gaze but am not taken captive, he punishes the look, lest through a false security you should some time fall into sin. “What then,” one may say, “if I should look, and desire indeed, but do no evil?” Even so you find your place among the adulterers. For the Lawgiver has pronounced it, and you must not question further. For when you look once, twice or three times, you will perhaps have power to refrain; but if you make this your habitual practice, kindling the furnace within you, you will assuredly be overcome. Your human nature is no different from that of other people. If we see a child holding a knife, though we don’t see him hurt, we spank him and forbid him to ever do so again. In the same way, God removes the licentious look even before the act, lest at any time you should fall in act also. For he who has once kindled the flame, even when the woman whom he has beheld is absent, is forming continually within himself images of shameful things. The images often lead even to the concrete act. Hence Christ takes away even that embrace which is in the heart only

    Chromatius: Because adultery is a serious sin and in order to uproot it, lest our conscience be defiled, he forbade even lust, which is the fuel of adultery. According to the words of blessed James in his epistle, “Lust when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.”3 The Holy Spirit speaks concerning this to David: “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock.”4 The symbolism here is that the blessed and truly evangelical person roots out the desires and lust of the flesh arising from human weakness. He does this immediately before they grow, at the onset, through faith in Christ who has been described as a rock.5 Tractate on Matthew 23.1.6-7.6
    God’s Command Addresses the Willing Soul. Anonymous: Those who care little for their souls do not look sufficiently into their hearts. They do not consider it a sin to get angry with their neighbors without cause and do not think it a sin to lust after a woman who belongs to another provided they do not follow up their lust. But it is a great sin among those who fear God and hold their hearts in high regard. And it is a great sin before God, who looks not only at one’s actions but also at one’s heart. With the inwardness of this commandment the law is not abolished but fulfilled, and without it the Lord’s commandment would be untenable.
    Every act of adultery arises from lust. Therefore how can adultery be restrained under the commandment of the law, unless the force of lust has been nipped in the bud under Christ’s commandment? For just as anger is the mother of murder, lust is the mother of adultery. Consequently one who gets angry at his brother without cause kills him in his heart, even though he does not actually kill him. It is still murder in the sight of God, who does not regard the action more than the disposition.
    So too the man who lusts after a woman who belongs to another has already committed adultery with her in his heart, though he has not had relations with her for whatever restraining reason. He is still an adulterer before God, who looks more at the will than the act. For the overt act of adultery may have been lacking, but not the will. Even those who are unaware of the deeper mystery of human nature can agree on this much: Every carnal nature is subject to these passions. No one, not even a saint, can possibly detach himself from the temptation to anger or lust. Yet they go on to imagine that Christ, as though commanding an impossible thing, is setting up a trap to make people culpable. Anyone who commands impossible things sows occasions of offense and lays grounds for punishment.
    This leads us to a reflection on the division between the wills of the soul and the body. We have two natures in us: the flesh and the soul. We thus indeed have two wills, that of the soul and that of the flesh. We may thus say we also have two angers, the anger of the soul and the anger of the flesh. Similarly we might speak of having a lust of the soul and a lust of the flesh. The flesh may come under the compulsion of getting angry and feeling lust, despite its will, since it was not created to have its own authority. It is not now under its own authority, as though created with it, but under the law of sin. For the flesh has been sold into the slavery of sin. That is why the apostle says, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot.”7 But the soul was created to be its own authority, according to the law of God’s righteousness. For that reason, the soul is able not to get angry, if it so wishes, and not to lust, if it so wishes. Thus when we get angry and feel the force of lust, if we are dissatisfied with ourselves and are quick to suppress either our anger or our lust, it is clear that our flesh alone is getting angry or lusting but not our soul. But if we become self-satisfied in these things and decide to give vent to any anger or lust we feel, then our soul as well gets angry and lusts at the same time as the flesh. Therefore, since God knows that the nature of the flesh is not subject to him, God does not bother to command the flesh as such, as if it stood alone. What knowing person then will give a command to someone who, despite good intentions, is unable to obey? Rather, God speaks to the soul, which is able to obey him in all things and which, despite an angry and lustful flesh, is able not to get angry and not to be consumed with lust.
  • If a person thinks as your friends speak then it would seem they are already distant from God. How can a Christian speak of preferring this sin or another? To sin in such a way is deliberate and deadly. It is not easy to repent of such deliberate sins.

    I am glad that you found some helpful passages. Especially from St John Chrysostom. I would want to say to all those who think that if we are going to commit one sin then we might as well commit a serious one, that we do not know when we are going to be called to account. We do not know when we might die. And if we die after committing deliberate serious sin then what is our state before God? If we commit sin thinking that we will repent later then simply saying sorry is not enough. That is not repentance at all. A person who sins deliberately and wilfully and seriously cuts himself off from communion with ChristM

    As you say rightly, it is a very dangerous point of view indeed, and leads those who hold it towards death rather than life.

    The Apostle Paul is clear, let us flee from sin. From all sin, not choosing one sin from another.
  • I feel that preaching that God will take our lives if we commit a sin is sometimes irrational .. I know abba antonious would say such a thing to himself.. because he was at a more advanced spiritual level who can understand such a thing and God PERHAPS trusts him with such a responsibility.. God prunes his servants that they may bear more fruit..still God can put different thoughts in peoples head..only he knows why.. sometimes it is because they are spiritually advanced.. sometimes it is because he wants people to understand scripture.. sometimes some other reason..
    .. once again I am not God.. but it is quite true we should always lift up our hearts to jesus
    and now perhapsa we can close this topic
  • mikeforjesus,

    I didn't say that God would take our lives if we sinned, though that does indeed happen. If we remember the account of Ananias and Sapphira for instance. They sinned, and then had the chance to repent but decided to sin again. But it is a very clear teaching in the Fathers that we should have our own death and judgement in mind as much as possible. Not in a morbid way, but to remind us that the time is short.

    "What time is it!"

    Don't we all love Abouna Yostos? What was he asking everyone? It wasn't that he needed a watch.

    It is helpful to me to ask myself, 'What if I died this evening? Do I really want to commit this sin just before I stand before my Lord?'. If we think we have many decades in which at some point we will get round to repentance then it is already too late.

    "Now is the day of salvation!"

    If we will not work out our salvation today, will we do so tomorrow, or next month? If we are sinning then we are heading away from God, and if we are striving to be holy then we are being drawn towards God by grace. If we do not repent NOW then we are moving away from God.

    So it is a good thing to have in mind our death. This does not take the joy out of life, but rather helps us offer each moment as a sacrifice of worship to God, and to enjoy each moment as a gift from God. I can't remember who said something like, 'Work and plan as if you had a lifetime of service ahead of you, but live each day as if it were your last'.

    Father Peter
  • Sex before marriage is fornication and this is a sin. It is mentioned in the Bible many times.
    But let's look at this from a nonspiritual perspective... Why would you want to give up your purity to someone who doesn't deserve it ? Sexual relation is something special, it's not something you're supposed to do casually. It is something special you are supposed to experience with the ONE you love-- the one you marry. If you do it now and then do it after marriage, it won't feel as special because it would kind of be known territory for you.
    I honestly don't think you would be asking this question if you thought having sex was a good idea. There was obviously some doubt in you.
    so NO you shouldn't have sex out of marriage and you shouldn't look to the bad example of the people who did. You can ask yourself "If i have sex now will i feel bad about it later ?" If the answer is yes, why would you intentionally want to hurt yourself ? and if the answer is no, that means you would not repent for this sin...... think about it.
Sign In or Register to comment.