> This morning, i spent my time on this, instead of a picture. A friend of mine has been deceived that the law that sex is only for marriage, to be unBiblical. He referred to Jesus' mention of no marriage for resurrected saints, and then said, "Think about it..."
I admit you did actually think about it. But the Bible has given you more than that one teaching about the future, to think about.
If you /will/ yourself to do the Father's will (like in "0" John 7:17), then you're going to wonder how does God define "sexual immorality". The KJV says "fornication" rather than "sexual immorality". Still, if you search the scriptures for the answer, you'll find that sex is meant to be between a husband and his wife, only.
If you don't have an old KJV (or perhaps an obscure translation), then you shall need to go to the Old Testament in your search. But whatever; there is NO indication anywhere in the Bible that Old Testament sex-laws were changed in the New Testament /except/ for where they are made MORE strict and less lenient. The punishments may have been alleviated, sort of, but NOT what counts as breaking the rules. Try to find one, if you can, if anyone can.
You'll find that fornicators were forced to marry, unless the lady's dad utterly refused. But there was still the punishment of the man paying a dowry. But the woman is left single in a society where it's easy to find a virgin to marry.
Adulterers were executed, both the male and female. But there was one loophole if the adulteress wasn't married: the financial burden and nagging burden of polygamy. People don't realize that polygamy is its own punishment. But consider that God would rather have us committing polygamy than fornication.
Whip out your Old Testament.
