Is premarital sex a sin?

[First Thought]

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.

You could just as easily be describing a tabloid magazine. The Bible is not the problem... It's usually the reader of the Bible who unconsciously projects a lot of preconceived notions. The opposite is just as bad: reading the Bible as literal truth. This is where a proper relationship with God is usually formed. As a sailor uses his compass for direction, direction can be found through prayer. God is an ever-present choice. The Bible was written by man.

 

[Demon of Light]

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.

Actually, I would think my position is quite controversial and sure to be rejected by basically every major Christian sect including the church I used to attend. Did you notice this little comment?:

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.

There I am suggesting Jesus may very well have engaged in sex, certainly a taboo for most hardcore religious Christians. Also, you ignore a very important part of Matthew 19:

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Obviously this part was talking about more than marriage. I would not describe myself as being part of any religion, including Christianity. However, it seems as clear as day to me that sex out of a committed relationship to one person at any point in one's life is considered a sin by the foremost authority on Christianity, Jesus.

The Old Testament is part of the Bible for a reason.

Yes it is. It is there to show you what came before and give a little history as well.

 

[Geo Patric]

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".

no, he does nothing of the sort. you do a good job of demonstrating exactly what i have been saying and doing exactly what jesus was attempting to get people to STOP doing - letting others TELL them what to believe when it was not hard to understand from the texts.

jesus brought NO new law. he specifically rejected the idea.

your new law comment was not in response to anything he had said. you followed with a citation wherein jesus not only does not attempt to negate TORAH, he insists that it be obeyed. he does not say that a people may not divorce. and, more specifically he is not making law - he is offering a philosophical viewpoint as can be easily seen in the full context of the verse.

Mark records the same episode. Mark continues, though. Shortly after that comment, when asked by a man how to obtain eternal life, jesus denies any personal divinity, denies the role of judge and tells the man to obey the Law Of Moses:

Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

the fella says he has always obeyed the Law and,,

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:

no law, a moral perspective.

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.

again, you are twisting his words, just as you have been taught to do. his words, when you read them are perfectly clear.

you know that it against the law to cross the street against a red light. but i say to you that you should not cross the street even with a green light as long as traffic continues to go through the intersection. No, i have not done away with the law nor have i proposed a new law, only shown that YOU can use the underlying intent of the law to better protect yourself.

: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.

nonsense. JESUS' ethics have a lot to commend them. 'christian' ethics are a perversion. Paul tossed the law out the window, not Jesus. It was inconvenient, so Paul simply decided it was not necessary.

on the law jesus was pretty specific. Obey it. You know the cites...

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law . . . I have not. . . I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law. . . . Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. ..

Matthew 5:17-20

no, it was not jesus that did away with The Law for 'christians', it was 'christians'.

geo.

 

[Panache]

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.

It doesn't say that the man won't get some nookie before leaving his mother and father to cleave to his wife. It doesn't address premarital sex at all. It gives a spiritual story behind hormonal development, claiming that the natural impulses of heterosexual folk to seek union with those of the opposite sex is because they were once one person, then separated, and now seek to be reunited.



:

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.

No prob. Its good to be appreciated.

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'.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why doesn't the bible say that Solomon had 1000 wives? Or even better, that he had one wife and was committing adultery with 999 other women. The bible says he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. in I Kings 11:1-7.

Do you claim that the Bible is in error on this point?

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

Oh, I don't really want to feel justified or avoid criticism. I'm just looking for practical ways to seduce Christian girls. ;-)

 

[GarzaUK]

You could just as easily be describing a tabloid magazine. The Bible is not the problem... It's usually the reader of the Bible who unconsciously projects a lot of preconceived notions. The opposite is just as bad: reading the Bible as literal truth. This is where a proper relationship with God is usually formed. As a sailor uses his compass for direction, direction can be found through prayer. God is an ever-present choice. The Bible was written by man.

The problem with being directed by prayer and by God, is that it is uncontrolled. I could claim that God told me to kill a prostitutes, and would not be incorrect or wrong. Many christains would disagree with killing prostitutes but if God told me to kill them who are anyone else to tell me different as God is the higher power.

You could say God wouldn't command such a thing, but how do you know unless you have a chat with God himself. In fact no Christain knows what God wants, hence all the sects, all the dominations, all the contradictions.

It is funny how If God communicates a loving message to a man people say the man is blessed. If the opposite happens, people say the man is a madman.

 

[First Thought]

The problem with being directed by prayer and by God, is that it is uncontrolled. I could claim that God told me to kill a prostitutes, and would not be incorrect or wrong.

Prayer is only uncontrolled if one is lacking focused intention and humility.

As for killing, why would God ever condone it? The idea of seperation arises only when one is still plagued by the subject-object dichotomy. If there is no division or seperateness, there is no one to kill. If you see yourself in others, ill-will falls to the wayside and is replaced by Love, Joy and Wisdom.

Many christains would disagree with killing prostitutes but if God told me to kill them who are anyone else to tell me different as God is the higher power.

Christians are followers of Christ. Christ never promoted violence, suffering or killing. Why should his followers?

You could say God wouldn't command such a thing, but how do you know unless you have a chat with God himself. In fact no Christain knows what God wants, hence all the sects, all the dominations, all the contradictions.

Some seek to distort God in a manner that suits their egoistic intentions and agendas. Through the law of karma, they reap what they sow. In the Presence of God, all negativity is obliterated. The clouds fade away and the sun shines forth. Truth becomes self-evident.

It is funny how If God communicates a loving message to a man people say the man is blessed. If the opposite happens, people say the man is a madman.

People say a lot of things. What you choose to believe is what's important.

 

[cpwill]

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.

that's possible among any belief system, religious or otherwise.

it's worth noting, however, that those who adhere to that Grand Old Book have a long history of breaking down such bigotries; unique, almost, in the history of the world.

 

[American]

Really? No takers? I figured at least one Christian out there would think they had the debate skills to take this one on.

Since the OT was quoted, asking about the Jews is moot.

 

[UtahBill]

Since the OT was quoted, asking about the Jews is moot.

I doubt that very many Jews live their moral lives IAW the OT...
What do modern Jews think of premarital sex?

 

[American]

I doubt that very many Jews live their moral lives IAW the OT...
What do modern Jews think of premarital sex?

I guess you'll have to ask one.

 

[VanceMack]

It seems pretty popular to think so, but I can't find any passage in the bible that says so.
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.

Dont know about the whole 'sin' thing but I can tell you that in MOST cases (OK...anecdotal...lets just say a LOT of cases and you can plug in your own experiences)...in MANY cases...a couples growth and development as a couple ENDS the moment they have sex. Most (not all) women equate sex to love, whereas most (not all) men equate sex to conquest.

 

[American]

Dont know about the whole 'sin' thing but I can tell you that in MOST cases (OK...anecdotal...lets just say a LOT of cases and you can plug in your own experiences)...in MANY cases...a couples growth and development as a couple ENDS the moment they have sex. Most (not all) women equate sex to love, whereas most (not all) men equate sex to conquest.

If this were true it would continue like crazy after marriage. But in most cases it decreases over time. It could be argued that women use sex as bait.

 

[VanceMack]

If this were true it would continue like crazy after marriage. But in most cases it decreases over time. It could be argued that women use sex as bait.

True enough in many cases. Just like men use flowers, dating, and manners as bait.

 

[UtahBill]

True enough in many cases. Just like men use flowers, dating, and manners as bait.

Is that where the expression "bait and switch" comes from??

 

[VanceMack]

Is that where the expression "bait and switch" comes from??

Cant vouch for the origin but it certainly fits!

 

[Geo Patric]

human beings are not monogamous animals by nature, only by force. aside from the many sexual/biological indicators, simple facts of what we DO, as opposed to what we PRETEND will tell us that. in countries where premarital and/or extra-marital are not punished, a diminishingly small number of people are actually monogamous their whole lives.

even in western religious texts, premarital sex is not condemned and only women are punished for extra-marital sex... morality be damned, the woman's reproductive rights belong to he father first, and then to her husband.

sex = sin is the single worst perversion of what it means to be a human that christianity preaches.

In Afhangistan, the taliban abd its vicious clerics are regaining control in certain areas. and people are being tortured and killed for falling in love and doing what is perfectly natural and healthful. what a heritage.

geo.

 

[VanceMack]

human beings are not monogamous animals by nature, only by force. geo.

I completely disagree with your argument right from the first sentence. Human beings that are raised in healthy home environments and have a strong sense of positive self esteem find partners and fall in 'love'. Those that are in powerful and positive loving relationships are VERY monogomous. Those that arent...well...arent. It has nothing to do with the human animal. Has everything to do with their self esteem self worth, and values.

OF COURSE...there are no absolutes. SOME people view it differently and thats fine...not even arguing against that. If your point is SOME human beings are strangers to monogamous relationships I would straight up agree. But not all...or even most. Most want desperately to be in powerful and positive loving relationships. Its just that some people dont, and some have given up on the concept.

 

[Geo Patric]

I completely disagree with your argument right from the first sentence. Human beings that are raised in healthy home environments ...

in other words, those that are TAUGHT that sex is a sin unless someone 'sanctifies' it will accept monogmay as a virtue... at least for a time. Anyone who falls deeply in love may very well decide that they will never, ever, under any circumstances wanna diddle any one else... until they do.

monogamy is a matter of NURTURE, not NATURE. I would not deny that some have a greater proclivity towards it than others, but in the end, where it is not taught, it is not practiced. where it is not punished, it is practiced.

whether you think it good or bad, it is definitely not natural.

geo.

 

[VanceMack]

in other words, those that are TAUGHT that sex is a sin unless someone 'sanctifies' it will accept monogmay as a virtue... at least for a time. Anyone who falls deeply in love may very well decide that they will never, ever, under any circumstances wanna diddle any one else... until they do.

monogamy is a matter of NURTURE, not NATURE. I would not deny that some have a greater proclivity towards it than others, but in the end, where it is not taught, it is not practiced. where it is not punished, it is practiced.

whether you think it good or bad, it is definitely not natural.

geo.

Wow..get slapped with the rule much by the nuns?

I dont know...there are a WHOLE LOT of people out there that have no real religous affiliation that actually desire powerful and positive loving relationships and not out of fear of hell and damnation that prevents them from acting on the desire to **** everything that walks. Not all...sure...but...

I think the desire for loving and belonging is greater than the desire for wanton ****ing. Love and belonging begins in early childhood.

 

[Hoplite]

We Pagans tend to take a much more permissive view of sex, caveatting only that there should be no un-wanted harm done to a person during the event.

To my knowledge, no Pagans embrace the idea that sex before marriage is wrong.

 

[Geo Patric]

Wow..get slapped with the rule much by the nuns?

no. the nuns who taught me did a fine job. they taught me to read and write and think. they were generally gentle, warm and affectionate women. they also taught me about loving others and how not to employ trite, empty and insulting and prejudicial stereotypes.

I dont know...there are a WHOLE LOT of people out there that have no real religous affiliation that actually desire powerful and positive loving relationships and not out of fear of hell and damnation that prevents . Not all...sure...but...

sure... are you under the impression that monogamy is the ONLY thing that we have adopted as a cultural predicate from 2000 years of religious sociological dominance?

i mean .... are listening to yourself? naturally monogamous creatures (and there are many... eagles, for instance) do not " desire to **** everything that walks" (or flies or swims or wriggles or creeps...). THAT'S what makes them monogamous. see what i mean? you don't even notice that it doesn't make much sense - the premise is so ingrained.

I think the desire for loving and belonging is greater than the desire for wanton ****ing.

well, you think very differently from most biologists

Love and belonging begins in early childhood.

sure. but love and sex are not the same thing, like milk and cookies, though best when together, you do not need one to enjoy the other.

geo.

 

[VanceMack]

no. the nuns who taught me did a fine job. they taught me to read and write and think. they were generally gentle, warm and affectionate women. they also taught me about loving others and how not to employ trite, empty and insulting and prejudicial stereotypes.
sure... are you under the impression that monogamy is the ONLY thing that we have adopted as a cultural predicate from 2000 years of religious sociological dominance?
i mean .... are listening to yourself? naturally monogamous creatures (and there are many... eagles, for instance) do not " desire to **** everything that walks" (or flies or swims or wriggles or creeps...). THAT'S what makes them monogamous. see what i mean? you don't even notice that it doesn't make much sense - the premise is so ingrained.
well, you think very differently from most biologists
sure. but love and sex are not the same thing, like milk and cookies, though best when together, you do not need one to enjoy the other.
geo.

Just saying...worlds of difference between an animal biological drive to procreate for the sake of furtherance of the species and loving and connected relationships that involve incredible sex. Relationship...connection to love, partner, and family...that creates a FAR stronger and more powerful drive than simple sex. Hell...sexual release as you said doesnt require a coupled partner...it doesnt even require another human being. But I think you are being way too simplistic. The human condition throughout the world and throughout time has people coupling. Wars have been fought over love. If it was 'just' sex that drives us we would just say.....eeehhhhhhhh...**** it...take her...theres always more...

 

[Geo Patric]

Just saying...worlds of difference between an animal biological drive to procreate for the sake of furtherance of the species and loving and connected relationships that involve incredible sex.

nor would i argue that. we are far more complex creatures .

Relationship...connection to love, partner, and family...that creates a FAR stronger and more powerful drive than simple sex.

that is certainly arguable. truly monogamous creatures have incredibly strong bonds based entirely on simple reproduction. no, not simple sex, it would certainly seem that the gratification humans derive from sex is far greater than that of other animals. but that does not contribute, i think, to an argument for the fundamental 'rightness' of monogamy, which has a political and economic basis. monogamous cultures produce more, faster with better abilities to maintain and protect. But... we have gone far past the need to 'be fruitful and multiply' - we have been a bit TOO fruitful, if ya ask me.

i am not arguing against anyone's choosing monogamy... i am generally in favor of it. I am arguing against the notion that being nonmonogamous is fundamentally wrong ("sinful") - it isn't,

geo.

 

[bangkok2010]

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.

Of course it is a sin ,the only way of sexual relationship between man and woman is through marriage .any other way is prohibited by religion .do not you see that God has punished homosxual and those who get sex outside marriage by AIDS .?

 

[Mustachio]

Pre-marital sex is a sin according to my girlfriend's father.

I think it's pretty ridiculous. If two people consent to something, I'm cool with it. And if two people love each other, sex is a natural path to go down. I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, I see a lot right with it.