Hm. Let's look at Galatians 5:19 a minute...
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
{the list goes on a bit, then adds that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Well, unless they repent, as also noted later.}
I'll skip adultery, we know what that is.
fornication: general outline says:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
2) metaph. the worship of idols
a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
Thayer's Lexicon says it includes "illicit sexual intercourse in general". Now, licit (allowed} sexual intercourse is what? Within proper marriage, looks like. So, some argue that sex outside of marriage is ILLicit and therefor included in "fornication".
What is the basis for the bolded part? Why does it look like within proper marriage? I would say it looks more like licit sexual intercourse is any intercourse that is not illicit. You have already defined illicit sexual intercourse above:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
You provided a definition of illicit sexual intercourse right there, and sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not part of it. The top item:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
is not just another item in the list, but rather a heading. The next three:
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
are preceded by a letter rather than a number because they fall under the heading of illicit sexual intercourse.
It seems to me that the general outline of fornication you provided aids my case more than yours. And we can't have that, because if you start agreeing with me, I will once again have no one to debate. ;-)
Well, I suppose you could debate that a little, especially if you're looking to be a rules-lawyer. :mrgreen:
My intent is not to circumvent the spirit of the law, but rather to address it. As far as I can tell, this animosity towards premarital sex is an entirely secular injunction imposed by old white dudes who weren't getting any and wanted everyone else to suffer too. ;-)
If you want to talk about the spirit of the law. I will refer you to Matthew 22:36-40.
Matthew 22:36-40 - Passage Lookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com
Since all the laws hang upon these two, addressing the spirit of any law, one must consider how that law was derived from these two fundamentals.
I know from personal experience that lovemaking can result from love, and remain a treasured experience even after the two have parted ways. Clearly such an act, whose motivation was founded in love not only isn't forbidden by the second greatest commandment, but is in fact encouraged. Unless there is evidence to suggest that one cannot love God and also love someone else without marrying them, I see no basis for spiritual objection to premarital sex.
But then again, for those of us who ARE Christians, should we be looking to figure out what we can GET AWAY with, or what we SHOULD do? Hmmm....
What you SHOULD do is love God and each other. Those are really the only two commandments of what you SHOULD do. All the commandments about what you SHOULDN'T do are corollaries of those two.
Loving someone in an intimate way that makes you one flesh is in the general sense good. If someone is already married, aiding them in betraying their spouse behind their back is harmful to both them and their spouse, and thus breaks the second greatest commandment. So you must find other ways to love those who are already married.
Uncleanness...
Thayer's says the moral impurity of lustful, luxurious profligate living.
That probably sounds like promiscuity would fall under uncleanness. Lots of casual sex partners would be lustful and profligate.
Premarital sex is not necessarily casual.
lasciviousness...
1) unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence
Again, I think we've got clear indicators here that promiscuity is one of the big No No's.
So what is promiscuity? Is there a specific number of sex partners that make it promiscuity?
Personally I think promiscuity lies in treating sex casually and carelessly, as if it were merely a game or pleasant sweaty exercise, rather than the serious moral and spiritual bonding of love and committment that God intended it to be.
The concepts of casual sex and promiscuity address physical sexual intercourse unaccompanied by a spiritual connection. My contention is that a spiritual/physical connection does not require a lifelong commitment, and not only isn't a sin, but is in fact a good thing.
You know what? I did that a few times when I was younger... but I repented of it and God forgave me, and I try very hard not to live like that anymore.
That's pretty much what repentance is, btw: a change of mind and heart that leads to a change in behavior. It's not about what we can get away with, it is about trying to do things God's way as much as we can, in our admittedly flawed and limited mortal existence.
Ok, but what makes you think that God's way is to deprive women of intimacy, rather than to try and connect with them spiritually as well as physically?
God has commanded you to love. If you find that you are treating sex as a casual diversion, it seems to me that abstaining from sex will not enable you to love any better, but treating it as a spiritual experience rather than a purely physical one will.