• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is premarital sex a sin?

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.
How do you know God's not still angry about it? Know is a pretty strong word.
 
How do you know God's not still angry about it? Know is a pretty strong word.

"Know" is just a word, like any other. It can be said with supreme conviction when it arises instantly from intuition rather than mentation.

As for God being angry, I think it's about time that we, as a collective race, stop projecting this image of an anthropomorphic, seperate being who created us just to test our "moral compass." Just food for thought. :)
 
Sorry I'm late, had to work and things. :mrgreen:

Glad you could make it. Now the party can start. :mrgreen:

Dude.... at least at this moment, I really like you. You posted something INTRESTING, and you did RESEARCH into it and had SUBSTANCE in your OP....just about the time I was about to give up on DP entirely. Thank you. :mrgreen:

Well, y'know, I wanted to make a Christian bashing thread, but it turns out that one had already been done. ;-)

I was brought up to believe that premarital sex was sin. The injunction against fornication was the basis, and I was told by the preacher that that included sex with anyone you were not married to.

Later, I started studying about original Hebrew and Greek texts and looking up important words, and began to wonder about that a bit.

To be honest I am still not entirely sure, and I'm going to have to spend some time looking into your references in scripture and seeing if I can come up with anything else.

Most Christians I know grew up believing that premarital sex was a sin either because their parents or their preacher told them it was. I know of no one who arrived at this conclusion independently just from their reading of the Bible. I certainly didn't get that impression when I read it.

Now, I think it is pretty clear that the ideal is that a man and a woman marry as virgins and remain faithful to each other or life. That would appear to be supported both by Adam and Eve

I don't think Adam and Eve can be used effectively as an example of sexual ideals. She was grown from his DNA. That's pretty much as incestuous as one can get. Certainly their children were incestuous, they were indirectly commanded to be, as there was no other way for them to fulfill God's imperative for them to "be fruitful and multiply." Seeing as incest is very clearly identified as sexually immoral at the time of Leviticus, one is forced to conclude either that Adam and Eve and their children were operating under an entirely separate moral structure, or that God commanded them to engage in sexual immorality. Assuming we can dismiss the latter, your claim remains unsupported by Adam and Eve.

and by what Jesus had to say about sex ... that it is more than merely sweaty exercise that feels good, that it is a joining of two people on a spiritual level, a sacred thing, and I'm sure that using it frivolously and promiscuously is not pleasing to God on that basis.

I don't disagree with this premise at all, but it does not support your conclusion. Suppose you have two people, Jack and Jill. They love each other and want to express their love in the most intimate way they can. They connect on a spiritual level in a sacred act as they become one flesh, and both benefit from loving and being loved in this way. They cannot stay together in a lifelong commitment for one reason or another, and they know this, so they don't get married.

Just because two people are not meant to create a family unit together does not mean they aren't meant to love each other for a time, or to connect spiritually and physically.

Being intimate with someone who circumstances won't allow you to be with forever is not the same as treating sex frivolously or casually. I think such unions are not only tolerable, but are in fact good.

But is it always a sin? I don't know... polygamy was not the ideal held up by the Bible in Genesis 1, but it was tolerated among the biblical patricarchs throughout the OT. Tolerated doesn't mean good, but is it sin well that might be hard to nail down...

Well I'm not entirely sure anymore about premarital. It would seem I'm going to have to do some research of my own when I get a chance, as well as looking at yours. That will be enjoyable anyway, so, way cool.

Still, I think it goes without saying to Christians that doing things God's way is best, and I don't think it is reasonably debateable that God wants sex to be a joining of two people in love and committment, on a spiritual as well as physical level.... ie marriage, hopefully or life. Better that Christians avoid premarital sex then... though to be honest I think there are plenty, even among the most devout, who open that box sometime between the engagement and the wedding. :shrug: Assuming everything works out and they go ahead and marry, well no big I suppose.

Again, I don't see the basis for a love=marriage assumption, or an association between sex and lifelong commitment.

But then again what if they don't marry? Well, then they've shared a level of intimacy that was supposed to be reserved or a lifetime committment without the committment.... sin? Dunno, but not good.

I still don't see the basis for saying that that level of intimacy should be reserved for a lifelong commitment. Obviously if they were engaged, and then broke off the engagement, they were treating sex as more than just a "sweaty exercise that feels good" as you so eloquently put it. If they then discover that God has called upon them to part ways. How does that make the intimacy that they had change from a good thing to a bad thing? I contend that it doesn't. Love shared between two people retains its value even when they part ways.

However, openly living together in presumed intimacy opens another can of worms. Whether it is true scripturally or not, it is generally assumed that Christians view premarital sex as a sin; for a Christian couple to live together before marriage would be seen by many as evidence of hypocrisy and something to use as an indictment against Christians "not living what they believe". That could arguably go against "avoid all appearance of evil" and "do not be a stumblingblock to your brother" and so on. Lots of things to consider there.

I don't think two people living together in love and harmony gives the appearance of evil at all. Precisely the opposite in fact.

Anyway, intresting post: thanks.

G.

Interesting response. Thanks.
 
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.
 
An interesting thought, but then it would stand to reason that later sexual partners would not be adulterous in nature if they were unmarried, but would simply become more wives. This is clearly not the case though. Exodus 22:16-17 which I previously quoted says that if a man sleeps with a virgin, and her father refuses to let them marry, that he shall pay the bride-price and they shall remain unmarried. Clearly then, having sex did not make them married already.

hmm, no, that was Jewish tribal code, which was a) replaced by the new law brought by Jesus and b) allowed in the first place even though it contained sin. as Jesus put it, for example:
Matthew 198-9 said:
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Jesus was pretty clear; unless that individual formed by the union of the two of you has already been destroyed; you are at fault if you do so.
 
Matthew 19 that has been cited here I think gives you a pretty good idea what the position was on sex. Generally the issue is not one of sex, but commitment. A person who always and only has sex with one person is not committing sin. This chapter has also been misconstrued by the Catholic Church in support of their doctrine on celibacy and to suggest Jesus himself would never have had sex, in response to claims he had a child. However, it is pretty clear the point of that statement is not that sex itself is sinful, but that humanity is sinful and as such it is better for those who can to refuse it altogether.
 
It seems pretty popular to think so, but I can't find any passage in the bible that says so.

A quick internet search revealed the following answer:



Premarital Sex

So I looked up 1 Corinthians 7:2. Turns out there is nothing in there about sex before marriage. Paul suggests that getting marred might be a good way to avoid sexual immorality, but that doesn't mean that all sex before marriage is a sin.

Married guys might be a bit less inclined to have sex with their sheep for example. This being the case, marriage would still be a "cure" as described.

In fact, the bible does a pretty good job of defining sexual immorality for us, so we don't really need to guess. It contains a comprehensive and exhaustive list of sexually immoral acts in Leviticus 18.

Leviticus 18 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Conspicuously absent from this extremely detailed list, is sex with women who are unmarried.

In fact, to my knowledge, there are only two verses in the entire bible that address sex with unmarried women at all. They are found in Exodus 22:16-17



Exodus 22:16-17 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

So if a dude has sex with an unmarried virgin who isn't already pledged to be married, he has to offer to marry her. If the father refuses, he still has to pay the bride price as if he were going to marry her.

As a measure of comparison, working on Saturday gets you killed.

Exodus 31:15

Having sex with unmarried women who aren't virgins comes with no penalty at all. having sex with a virgin to whom you are already betrothed comes with no penalty. Girls having sex with dudes who are unmarried virgins or otherwise doesn't appear to either.

Actually, any sex outside of marriage is considered adultery. However, ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Christ came to save sinners, not the self-righteous.
 
Actually, any sex outside of marriage is considered adultery. However, ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Christ came to save sinners, not the self-righteous.


Intresting. Got a source on that? "Considered" by ....who?
 
hmm, no, that was Jewish tribal code, which was a) replaced by the new law brought by Jesus and .

here we find another bizarre christian myth that not only has NO substance in the acts or words of the man to whom they are attributed but in fact, are specifically DENIED by the man to whom they are attributed. NO one who has actually read the words of jesuz of nazareth themselves, sat down and gave them even a few moments of thought could come up with this.

ONLY someone with his own agenda could create this absolutely false premise.

and... no one seems to notice.

geo.
 
here we find another bizarre christian myth that not only has NO substance in the acts or words of the man to whom they are attributed but in fact, are specifically DENIED by the man to whom they are attributed. NO one who has actually read the words of jesuz of nazareth themselves, sat down and gave them even a few moments of thought could come up with this.

ONLY someone with his own agenda could create this absolutely false premise.

and... no one seems to notice.

geo.

did you not read the verse cited? Jesus specifically states "this was the way of the Mosaic law, and it is wrong and this is how it is really is". and this was a consistent theme with Him: 'you have heard it taught that X (x=old law), but i tell you Y (y=new)' etc.

:roll: but i do find it entertaining that those who will tell me that they have no reason to care will nonetheless seek to justify their actions or lifestyles via Christian ethics.
 
If you are a Protestant you can define pornea or akatharsia in whatever preconceived manner you wish.
Meanings of the New Testament words "Pornea" & "Akatharsia"
The Greek words "pornea" (often translated "fornication") and akatharsia (often translated "uncleanness") are key terms used to refer to sexual sins in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). They appear dozens of times, particularly in the writings attributed to Paul, who concentrated a great deal on sexual sins. Unfortunately, diverse Christian groups have very different definitions of these words.
* Religious liberals tend to define the terms narrowly and precisely.
* Religious conservatives often define the words to include a wide assortment of sexual activities, when practiced within a wide range of types of relationships.

By simply defining the words in a narrow or wide sense, religious liberals and conservatives can totally change the meaning of the Bible.




As for our Catholics, sola scriptura is not valid. The Catholic church answers directly and in detail. Most of the material regarding sex involves marriage, divorce, annulments, etc, but I;ve found a few which cover the topic. Here are some resources:
Catholic Answers: This Rock: Quick Questions: Marriage
Did Jesus Allow Divorce? (This Rock: October 2006)
Did Jesus Say Adultery Is Grounds for Divorce? (This Rock: July 2000)

Jesus stated in Matthew 5:28 that a person can commit sins of sexual impurity even in his thoughts. He stated, "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." The same thing is true of fornication (premarital sex).

Looking at a woman to whom you are not married and indulging in lustful thoughts counts as committing fornication in your heart. If indulging yourself in mental lust for a woman to whom you are not married counts, how much more will intimate touching, in which you partially act out the sexual desire you have for another.

Though some priests may not like to say so, fornication is a grave (mortal) sin. The apostle Paul states, "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness . . . and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5:19-21). This is a severe teaching. It is one many unmarried people find hard to accept, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture, and we must hold to it.

Sometimes people rationalize extramarital sexual practices on the grounds that by committing a lesser sin one may avoid a greater one, such as fornication, but there are two problems with this.

First, as the Holy Father has made clear in his recent encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, one may never do something intrinsically wrong in order to avoid a problem. We cannot do evil that good may come of it.

Second, this strategy simply doesn't work. If you find it difficult to restrain yourself sexually, following that priest's advice will not make it easier to control yourself--quite the opposite.

The only "relationship of love" that makes sexual intercourse acceptable is a marital one. The priest who told you otherwise wasn’t presenting Catholic teaching on the subject, but his own (erroneous) opinion.

In its Declaration on Certain Problems of Sexual Ethics, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed traditional Catholic teaching on the subject of sexual relations outside marriage:

Nowadays many claim the right to sexual intercourse before marriage, at least for those who have a firm intention of marrying and whose love for one another, already conjugal as it were, is deemed to demand this as its natural outcome . . . This opinion is contrary to Christian teaching, which asserts that sexual intercourse may take place only within marriage. (7)
 
hmm, no, that was Jewish tribal code, which was a) replaced by the new law brought by Jesus and b) allowed in the first place even though it contained sin. as Jesus put it, for example:

Jesus was pretty clear; unless that individual formed by the union of the two of you has already been destroyed; you are at fault if you do so.

I don't see how the verse you quoted demonstrates that having sex with someone automatically makes you married to that person.
 
Matthew 19 that has been cited here I think gives you a pretty good idea what the position was on sex. Generally the issue is not one of sex, but commitment. A person who always and only has sex with one person is not committing sin. This chapter has also been misconstrued by the Catholic Church in support of their doctrine on celibacy and to suggest Jesus himself would never have had sex, in response to claims he had a child. However, it is pretty clear the point of that statement is not that sex itself is sinful, but that humanity is sinful and as such it is better for those who can to refuse it altogether.

I don't think so at all. I think Matthew 19 gives you a pretty good idea of Jesus's position on divorce. He was asked about divorce. He responded with regard to divorce. The passage made no mention of sex at all. Certainly not premarital sex.
 
Actually, any sex outside of marriage is considered adultery. However, ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Christ came to save sinners, not the self-righteous.

I disagree. I'm tellin' you, Leviticus 18 contains an extremely comprehensive list of sexual transgressions. I found a nice little definition for adultery in Leviticus 18:20
20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
Leviticus 18:20 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

You got a verse to support your theory?
 
I don't see how the verse you quoted demonstrates that having sex with someone automatically makes you married to that person.

;) that's because it wasn't intended to, it was a response to a counterclaim.

however, if you want, the relevant definition is found in Genesis 2, and Mark 10 (and of course the other synoptics). A man shall leave his mother and father, hold fast/cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. marriage is defined as the sex act.
 
I disagree. I'm tellin' you, Leviticus 18 contains an extremely comprehensive list of sexual transgressions.

ummm. so? Leviticus, Exodus, etc isn't exactly the controlling factor here. you might as well complain about Christians not following the dietary restrictions.
 
;) that's because it wasn't intended to, it was a response to a counterclaim.

however, if you want, the relevant definition is found in Genesis 2, and Mark 10 (and of course the other synoptics). A man shall leave his mother and father, hold fast/cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. marriage is defined as the sex act.

Ok, i read it. I re-read it. I still missed the part in Genesis 2 that said "A man shall leave his mother and father, hold fast/cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh, and this will make them married for the rest of their life."
 
ummm. so? Leviticus, Exodus, etc isn't exactly the controlling factor here. you might as well complain about Christians not following the dietary restrictions.

Well, I would, if it were germane to the topic.

The reason I brought up Leviticus was because it provides definitions for what sexual activities are considered illicit. When Paul says that fornication is bad, what does he mean by the word "fornication?" Well, he means sex that is forbidden. What kind of sex is forbidden? Look at Leviticus 18.

If Paul had said "Eating unclean animals is bad" and based on this, the majority of Christians arbitrarily decided that he meant that cows had to be pressure washed before being slaughtered, then I certainly would bring up the dietary restrictions in Leviticus to demonstrate that the term "unclean animals" already had a definition in legal precedent respective to the context in which Paul spoke, and would similarly contend that eating cows which had not been pressure washed was not in fact a sin.
 
I don't think so at all. I think Matthew 19 gives you a pretty good idea of Jesus's position on divorce. He was asked about divorce. He responded with regard to divorce. The passage made no mention of sex at all. Certainly not premarital sex.

I think you're reading it the way you want to read it rather than the way it is written. The Old Testament is the Old Testament for a reason.
 
I think you're reading it the way you want to read it rather than the way it is written.

No. I am reading it as it is written, without the circumstantial bias of having been told by a preacherman how to interpret it in a way that jives with the brand of morality he was selling.

You, on the other hand are twisting words around to fit an agenda. If you are anything like Goshin and the rest of my Christian friends, you were taught a moral code by your parents/pastor and told that the Bible supported it, and now you need it to be so, so in reading the bible you narrow your search to find justification for the moral code you were taught, rather than seek to gain understanding independently.

Let's look closely at the quoted passage shall me?

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

I have highlighted some key words here, which indicate that the subject under contention was whether married men are justified in divorcing their wives, and not Jesus's position on sex.

Further evidence is found in Matt 19:3, where the Pharisees are asking the question to which he is responding.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

The Pharisees didn't ask about sex. They asked about divorce. Jesus didn't talk about sex in his reply. He talked about divorce. Both the Pharisees and Jesus were speaking specifically to the actions of married men, as indicated by a reference to their wives, (which I highlighted in bold for your convenience) so an application of this verse to the actions of unmarried men seems a tad disingenuous.

The verse, as it was written, is about divorce, and whether or not it is acceptable. I don't see how any literate person could deny this. I don't need to twist any words around to make it about divorce. It has the word "divorce" right there in the passage. I don't need to twist words around to apply it to married men, since it talks about them "divorcing" their "wife" right there in the passage.

I read the verse as saying that married men shouldn't divorce their wives and remarry because that is adultery. I am genuinely baffled as to why you would say I am reading this verse the way I want to read it, rather than the way it is written. Are you really contending that the verse doesn't say that married men who divorce their wives and remarry are committing adultery?

Your interpretation of this verse was that Jesus thinks that unmarried people shouldn't have sex. Since Jesus was specifically talking about married men. And you are specifically talking about unmarried men, you may was well interpret the verse as saying that Jesus hates Pecan Ice Cream.

The Old Testament is the Old Testament for a reason.

The Old Testament is part of the Bible for a reason.
 
Ok, i read it. I re-read it. I still missed the part in Genesis 2 that said "A man shall leave his mother and father, hold fast/cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh, and this will make them married for the rest of their life."

Genesis 2:21-24; So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [k] '
for she was taken out of man."

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.


and so this is how we are generally designed to go through life; conjoined with a member of the opposite Gender; later we would learn how this is in many ways a beautiful human reflection of the love and relationship that takes place inside the Godhead. now, no, it didn't have the "for the rest of their lives" language, for at least a couple of reasons: 1. the two would die at different times; especially given the high mortality rate for women in childbirth and 2. divorce was permitted under general Old Testament law.

No. I am reading it as it is written, without the circumstantial bias of having been told by a preacherman how to interpret it in a way that jives with the brand of morality he was selling.

:lol: yes, you alone out of all of humanity are capable of coming to the Bible completely free of any preconceptions, opinions, a priori arguments, or beliefs. :) thank goodness you finally came along oh-he-who-is-able-to-read-the-bible-as-written-without-bias; we've had no end of trouble in the last 2,000 years without your presence.

of course Jesus was focusing on marriage and divorce; that was the question posed to him. he states that any divorce for any reason other than adultery followed by remarriage constitutes adultery. but how could that be, given that divorce was lawful under Mosaic law, and sex within marriage is certainly not forbidden? well, Jesus references the answer to that too; the two have become one flesh via the sex act.

since Jesus chooses to define marriage within the framework of the sex act between a man and a woman, the notion of 'premarital sex' is (again) a bit of a misnomer. more like (assuming multiple partners) 'early marriage followed by lots of adultery'.


look man, i understand the desire to do it and have it justified; and i understand the desire on others not to criticize. heck, i did it myself.

but that doesn't make it right ;)
 
Last edited:
The great thing about the bible is that you can pick and choose your own rules, ideas and bigotries to confirm with your faith. It is a grand old book.
 
Back
Top Bottom