In the Torah the word adultery ניאוף is always used to refer to sex with a married woman as in Leviticus 20. It does not refer to sex outside of marriage. If it would mean sex outside of marriage then even the most righteous kings of Israel  would have been guilty of a crime that carries the death sentence.

Rather the issue of  a concubine--what today would be called a girl friend--is a totally different subject- a debate between rishonim. [Rambam is against it as is well known but not in the way that people think. See the חלקת מחוקק in אבן העזר. To the Rambam it is not זנות but an איסור עשה. To most other Rishonim like the Ramban and Raavad it is totally permitted. Besides the fact that the actual opinion of the Rambam himself is in doubt since the Ramban brings an older version of the Rambam.

The reason this is not well known is that in the New Testament the issue gets mixed up.

The attitude of Paul is  in the letters that are printed is against sex out of marriage, but in the Book of Tecla his attitude is any sex at all even in marriage causes one to lose their portion in the next world.

That is not to imply that sex outside of marriage is a good thing. Rather nowadays, marriage is not marriage. Marriage is no longer  a bond of souls, but a formal financial contract, money for sex. It has lost all semblance of a holy thing.

בבא בתרא דף ע''ו ע''א

The ר''י has a question on ר''ת that to me seems hard to understand. The ר''י holds מסירה is less powerful than משיכה. However ר' תם holds מסירה over is more powerful. [If ר' ת''ם is right, then מסירה  works in an סימטא.. But the ר''י disagrees with that.] The question of the ר''י is based on the following גמרא. A ship is acquired by pulling and אותיות by מסירה. Then ר' נתן agrees with the ship but with a document he needs מסירה and write another document. The גמרא asks this question. Since the first opinion, the תנא קמא, goes like ר' יהודה הנשיא in letters, why does he not also say like ר' יהודה הנשיא by a ship?  For we learn that a ship is acquired by handing over these are the words of ר' יהודה הנשיא. The sages said by pulling. The גמרא answers, no problem. One case is a  רשות הרבים and the other a סימטא. Then the גמרא brings  אביי ורבא that said מסירה works in a  רשות הרבים and משיכה in an alley. Could it be there are going like ר' יהודה הנשיא instead of the חכמים? No. The חכמים agree in a  רשות הרבים one acquires by מסירה. But here they say one needs משיכה because the owner said to the buyer to go acquire the ship by pulling. The ר''י asks if ר' תם would be right, why does the גמרא answer the original question by saying one is in a רשות הרבים and the other in an סימטא? Why not say both are in an alley, but the argument is in a case when the owner said "Go pull". Does the buyer acquire only by pulling, or perhaps also by  handing over?  The question I have is this. The reason the גמרא said "one case is  a public domain and the other an alley" is so that the opinion of the the תנא קמא of ר' נתן would be the same as ר' יהודה הנשיא. That is it would be just one שיטה saying both statements. A ship is acquired by מסירה in a רשות הרבים and in an alley it is acquired by משיכה.  The גמרא was trying to get out of the idea that the first opinion the תנא קמא  would be different than ר' יהודה הנשיא so saying we could say they disagreed would defeat the entire purpose.

בבא בתרא דף ע''ו ע''א
לר''י יש שאלה על ר''ת. השאלה נראית לי קשה להבין. הר''י מחזיק מסירה היא פחות חזקה מאשר משיכה. היינו מסירה היא אופן רכישה חלש ממשיכה. אולם ר' תם מחזיק מסירה היא יותר חזקה. [אם ר' תם נכון, אז מסירה עובדת בסימטא, אבל לר''י לא.] שאלת ר''י מבוססת על הנחות היסוד הבאות בגמרא. הוראה אחת אומרת ספינה נרכשת על ידי משיכה ואותיות על ידי מסירה. אז ר' נתן מסכים עם הספינה אבל עם מסמך הוא מצריך מסירה ולכתוב מסמך אחר. הגמרא שואלת את השאלה הזאת. מאז דעת הראשונה, תנא קמא, הולכת כמו ר' יהודה הנשיא באותיות, מדוע הוא אינו גם סובר כמו ר' יהודה הנשיא בספינה? שהרי אנו למדים כי ספינה נרכשת על ידי מסירה. אלה הם דבריו של ר' יהודה הנשיא. החכמים אמרו על ידי משיכה. גמרא עונה, אין בעיה. מקרה אחד הוא רשות הרבים והשני בסימטא. ואז גמרא מביאה אביי ורבא שסוברים מסירה עובדת בתוך רשות הרבים ומשיכה בסמטה. הייתכן שהם הולכים כמו ר' יהודה הנשיא במקום החכמים? לא, החכםים מסכימים בתוך רשות הרבים שאחד רוכש ידי מסירה. אבל כאן הם אומרים אחד צריך משיכה כי הבעלים אמרו לקונה ללכת לרכוש את הספינה על ידי משיכה. ר''י שואל אם ר' תם יהיה תקין, ומדוע הגמרא  ענתה על השאלה המקורית  ר' יהודה דיבר כשהספינה נמצאת ברשות הרבים והת''ק דר' נתן בסימטא? למה הגמרא לא ענתה שניהם נמצאים בסמטה, אך הטיעון הוא במקרה כאשר בעל הספינה דייק לומר לקונה "לך משוך". האם הקונה רוכש רק על ידי משיכה, או אולי גם על ידי מסירה? השאלה שיש לי היא זו. הסיבה שהגמרא אמרה "במקרה אחד הוא רשות הרבים והשני סמטה" היא כך כי דעתו של של תנא קמא ר' נתן תהיה זהה ר' יהודה הנשיא. כלומר זה יהיה רק ​​ שיטה אחת שאומרת שתי ההצהרות. ספינה נרכשת על ידי מסירה בתחום ציבורי ובסמטה היא נרכשת על ידי משיכה. הגמרא ניסתה לצאת מן הבעיה כי הדעה הראשונה (התנא קמא) תהיה שונה מאשר ר' יהודה נשיא. כך אם אנחנו יכולים לומר שהם לא מסכימים זה יסכל את המטרה כולה.
__________________________________________________________________________

Gemara Bava Batra 76-A

The Ri has a question on Rabainu Tam that to me seems hard to understand.
The Ri holds handing over is less powerful than pulling.  Rabainu Tam hold handing over is more powerful. [If R. Tam is right then handing over works in an alley.. But the Ri disagrees with that.]
The question of the Ri is based on the following Gemara.
A ship is acquired by pulling and letters by handing over. R.Natan agrees with the ship but with letters he needs to handover and write another document.
The Gemara asks that since the first opinion (the תנא קמא) goes like R. Yehuda Hanasi in letters why doe he not also say like R.Yehuda Hanasi by a ship?  For we learn that a Ship is acquired by handing over these are the words of Yehuda Hanasi. The sages said by pulling. The Gemara answers, "No problem. One is a public domain and the other an alley."
Abyee and Rava said: "Handing over works in a public domain, and pulling in a alley." Could it be there are going like R. Yehuda Hanasi instead of the sages? No. The sages agree in a public domain one acquires by handing over. But here they say one needs pulling because the owner said to the buyer to go acquire the ship by pulling.
The Ri askes if R.Tam would be right why does the Gemara answer the original question by saying one is in a public domain and the other in an alley? Why not say both are in an alley but the argument is if when the owner said go pull that the buyer must acquire by pulling, not handing over or not.

The question I have is this. The reason the Gemara said "one is  a public domain and the other an alley" is so that the opinion of the the תנא קמא of R.Natan would be the same as R. Yehuda Hanasi. That is it would be just one person saying both statements  a ship is acquired by pulling and a ship is acquired by handing over.  The Gemara was trying to get out of the idea that the first opinion the תנא קמא  would be different than R. Yehuda so saying we could say they disagreed would defeat the entire purpose.

U-59 D Minor

One has a certain amount of control on what groups to join. The general nature of those groups ought to be  a factor in such a decision.. Even if a group has nice sounding ideas, the thing to watch for is the general stereotype. If it is well known as having an over abundance of criminal types or insane people, then you ought to assume there is something behind that reputation.
[But if that is going to be the criterion of how to decide which group to join, that would leave relatively few groups that pass the test.]

[Litvak Yeshivas would probably be the top of the list in terms of good character. However this is not a fast and steady rule. My own  experience with Litvak yeshivas was mixed. In any case, there is a need to find and be part of a group that in fact has a bell curve above average in terms of traits like honesty dependability etc.]

When does the suggestion of a parent become a command that is included in כיבוד אב ואם {honor of one's father and mother}?

Is every suggestion to be included?

From Reb Naphtali Troup (חידושי הגרנ''ט) it certainly looks that when they give a command, that comes under the category of a מצוות עשה (positive command). But how far does this go?

One way of looking at this is by the בן סורר ומורה (the rebellious son) which is a subcategory of the general command of honor of one's parents.

Another way is to look at the events with Rav Masud Abuzeira and his eldest son Reb David. Rav David as a rule took honor of his parents very seriously but one day said a very slight word to his father lacking respect. He then went into exile for a month. But at any rate, from that event t is possible to learn that honor of one's parents is a very wide category to include not just things they say.

Even when parents are against things that are supposedly good things one ought to listen. They are against joining some group? Often groups present themselves as great things and parents might very well be right for being suspicious.

Exodus 23 has a few verses that look something like a mediator. That is to say some thing that does not look to be the way one usually understands Torah to be that one goes directly to G-d. There G-d says he will send an angel before Israel to guide them.And the verses go on beyond that to say one should not disobey the angel because G-d's name is in him.

Besides that I should mention there are many verses in Torah which are not exactly PC. Like the whole case of G-d wanting to kill Moses before he did circumcision on his son. The verses over there certainly do not look PC.

There are plenty of things in the Talmud also that are definitely not PC. Like the barber that gave the haircut to the king of Assyria that the Gemara says things about that do not seem very PC.

The way I generally deal with these kinds of issues is the idea of Kant-that reason  must not venture into the realm of the dinge an sich (things in themselves) as contradictions  inevitably follow.

[There were others who noticed this aspect of Kant and used it to defend faith. In particular you can see this in the Kant=Friesian school.]

To me it seems helpful that faith should be unconcerned with doctrines and more concerned with simply learning Torah and keeping it whether I understand it or not.
In any case, I should mention that non PC stuff comes up all the time in Torah and most of the time there seems to be no good explanation.