Is premarital sex a sin?

[First Thought]

Of course it is a sin

Bible verse?

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 .?

Hahaha, you don't say?

 

[Hoplite]

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

By YOUR religion maybe, not mine

 

[cpwill]

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.

it does not address premarital sex directly; this is correct. again, this is because you are coming to it from a misconception; the concepts of sex and marriage were intertwined. Jesus was asked about marriage, he defined it as a sexual relationship between a man and a woman which he stated actually joined the two together into one. he didn't address premarital sex because he didn't need to, neither did he specifically state that for a priest to rape little boys was wrong; but i'm willing to bet most folks here are willing to pony up to agreeing that such an act would certainly be a sin. and what is the difference? certainly nothing biblical or theological; merely that they want to have sex without marriage and they do not want to rape little boys, and so they wish for a moral system that blesses what they want to do and condemns that which they do not.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why doesn't the bible say that Solomon had 1000 wives?

:shrug: probably because he got married a thousand times (hyperbole). you will note also that the Bible speaks dissaprovingly of his many sexual partners; one of the things about the Bible is that it is very upfront about the failings and humanity of the individuals it discusses. even the greatest of Old Testament heroes fall short and do evil.

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

so you are attempting to find ways to trick young girls into doing things that they believe to be immoral in order to gain temporary pleasure for yourself.

my what an honorable and noble man you are.

 

[Panache]

it does not address premarital sex directly; this is correct. again, this is because you are coming to it from a misconception; the concepts of sex and marriage were intertwined. Jesus was asked about marriage, he defined it as a sexual relationship between a man and a woman which he stated actually joined the two together into one. he didn't address premarital sex because he didn't need to, neither did he specifically state that for a priest to rape little boys was wrong; but i'm willing to bet most folks here are willing to pony up to agreeing that such an act would certainly be a sin. and what is the difference? certainly nothing biblical or theological; merely that they want to have sex without marriage and they do not want to rape little boys, and so they wish for a moral system that blesses what they want to do and condemns that which they do not.

Really? That is an interesting perspective. So you don't believe that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin? That is rather refreshing. Deuteronomy 22:25-28 certainly seem to condemn rape as a sin. Personally I think it is pretty much covered in Galatians 5:14 Galatians 5:14 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Its easy to understand that someone who loves their neighbor will not rape them. Its not so easy to understand why someone who loves their neighbor would deny them physical affection.

:shrug: probably because he got married a thousand times (hyperbole). you will note also that the Bible speaks dissaprovingly of his many sexual partners; one of the things about the Bible is that it is very upfront about the failings and humanity of the individuals it discusses. even the greatest of Old Testament heroes fall short and do evil.

How could he get married a thousand times? Aren't you saying that he can only get married once, and that every sexual encounter after that is adultery?

so you are attempting to find ways to trick young girls into doing things that they believe to be immoral in order to gain temporary pleasure for yourself.

my what an honorable and noble man you are.

Your ability to interpret smilies appears on par with your interpretation of the bible.

 

[cpwill]

Really? That is an interesting perspective. So you don't believe that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin?

i thought that the sexual-liberation-ideology had spent much time, energy, and effort into screaming every chance they got that pedophilia was in no way homosexuality?

Its easy to understand that someone who loves their neighbor will not rape them. Its not so easy to understand why someone who loves their neighbor would deny them physical affection.

:shrug: affection, even physical affection, is not the same as sex.

How could he get married a thousand times? Aren't you saying that he can only get married once, and that every sexual encounter after that is adultery?

that is what Jesus said; here with the Solomon example (David too, btw; don't forget that Solomon was the offspring of a relationship that began with adultery and murder) i suppose we are letting the language of the ceremony and the language of the act cross-over too much.

Your ability to interpret smilies appears on par with your interpretation of the bible.

that good eh? i figured.

but you are the one claiming to have figured out something that turns on it's head the combined wisdom of generations of scholars who have spent their entire lives devoted to Theology and this particular text; i'd rather like to see some of your credentials when it comes to scriptural criticism?

 

[Panache]

i thought that the sexual-liberation-ideology had spent much time, energy, and effort into screaming every chance they got that pedophilia was in no way homosexuality?

That is called the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The time, energy, and effort were spent screaming that homosexuality is not pedophilia, not the other way around.

:shrug: affection, even physical affection, is not the same as sex.

Maybe you're doing it wrong.

that is what Jesus said; here with the Solomon example (David too, btw; don't forget that Solomon was the offspring of a relationship that began with adultery and murder) i suppose we are letting the language of the ceremony and the language of the act cross-over too much.

I think I am using the language used in the bible. Are you saying that God let the language of the ceremony and the language of the act cross-over too much when He was divinely inspiring His authors? Wouldn't that make Him the author of confusion?

that good eh? i figured.

You just go on thinking that....

but you are the one claiming to have figured out something that turns on it's head the combined wisdom of generations of scholars who have spent their entire lives devoted to Theology and this particular text;

Are you going to pretend like your interpretation is somehow the majority opinion among Christian scholars and theologists? A quick Google search reveals otherwise

It is true that sexual relations is the ultimate fulfillment of a couple becoming “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). However, the act of sex does not equal marriage.

If an unmarried couple has sex, are they married in God's eyes?

Sometimes people say that a man and a woman are married when they first have sex together, based on the fact that the Bible says that "the two will become one flesh." But notice in the following verse that when Paul said "The two will become one flesh," this doesn't mean that sex constitutes marriage:

Is Premarital Sex a Sin?

After decades of hearing, "Do what's right for you-as long you hurt no one else," many couples have chosen to live together rather than marry first. Even couples raised in the church sometimes choose to cohabit before their wedding. Some of them argue that it's the sexual union, and not the vows, that actually creates the marriage.
Yet this approach seems to reduce marriage to a physical act; it overlooks the wonderful spiritual mystery the Bible reveals. The elusive, intangible spiritual "tie that binds" in the eyes of God holds the answer here.

Amazon.com: What Makes A Marriage?: In God's eyes, do a man and a woman become married after having sex or after exchanging vows?: Carol Wilde, Steve Tracy: Books

Sexual relations alone do not constitute marriage, for marriage involves a wholesale commitment of two lives, not just a temporary coupling of two bodies.

Good Question: The Marriage Mystery | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

i'd rather like to see some of your credentials when it comes to scriptural criticism?

Well since you asked nicely, my words are Divinely inspired through the Spirit of Truth (except for the bit about seducing Christian girls. That was my idea. ;-) ) I believe you will find that those credentials trump everyone else's. Oh, Snap!

 

[Panache]

Since my rebuttals to those defending the absurd notion that premarital sex is a sin have gone unchallenged, I shall take it one step further, and demonstrate that in many situations, premarital sex is not only permitted, it is specifically commanded.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12

Let us suppose that a man is romantically involved with a woman, and that woman initiates an overture of sexual availability. Let us also suppose that were their positions reversed, the man would have such an overture reciprocated, leading to sexual intercourse.

According to the philosophy which Jesus has described as summing up the Law and the Prophets in their entirety, this man is obligated to do to the woman what he would have her do to him. In this case, he is commanded to reciprocate her amorous advances and engage in sexual intercourse with her, since that is what he would have her do to him.

We know that the Golden Rule is applicable in this context, because the context is provided in the rule. "So, in everything" specifically includes every context. If the rule were context specific, He would have instead said, "So in some things, but not in others."

We also know that there is no conflicting rule that could supersede this rule. "for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" clearly identifies to us that if any Biblical Law we find seems to run counter to this principal, then it has either been misinterpreted, or it is not really a Law at all, since it would fall outside the scope of this summary.

Accordingly, we are commanded to do to our unmarried girlfriends as we would have them do to us. If by some chance what we would have them do to us involves sex, then sex is not only morally justified, but is in fact a divine mandate.

=)

 

[cpwill]

The time, energy, and effort were spent screaming that homosexuality is not pedophilia, not the other way around.

quite the opposite, the emphasis has been to push pedophilia as far away from homosexuality as possible. argue that pedophilia is homosexuality and a whole host of folks will jump all over you, frothing at the mouth that pedophiliacs are all about control, not homosexuality, etc. etc. etc.

Maybe you're doing it wrong.

not at all. my wife just had a child; we aren't having sex. think that keeps us from being physically affectionate? think i don't hug my family members? my friends?

I think I am using the language used in the bible.

you are typing in a mixture of ancient aramaic, hebrew, and greek? wow. this forum has one heck of a translation program.

Are you saying that God let the language of the ceremony and the language of the act cross-over too much when He was divinely inspiring His authors?

i'm saying that we are dealing with historians in this section, not theologians.

Wouldn't that make Him the author of confusion?

no, it would make Him a God that uses humans as his tools.

You just go on thinking that....

:roll:

Are you going to pretend like your interpretation is somehow the majority opinion among Christian scholars and theologists? A quick Google search reveals otherwise

no, a quick Google search can reveal that there are those who prefer to quibble and excuse in order to be 'relevant to today.' similar effort could find for you christian theologians who insist that ordaining sexually active homosexual bishops is just fine, and more than a few who choose to believe (in direct contradiction to Jesus) that no one goes to hell. there have been and always will be Christans who fall prey to the temptation to conform to the world rather than the other way round. but you haven't even managed to do that. perusing through your links it is entertaining to note that you cite people who disagree with your thesis on this thread, and even disagree with what you are claiming they say.

for example, your link here:

Scripture simply does not picture marital union without physical union. The beautiful erotic imagery of Genesis 2:24-25 is unambiguous. Marriage is a "one flesh" relationship. Sex is not peripheral to marriage but is delicately woven into its very fabric.

and your link here[/url:

"Fornication - Hebrew: zanah / Greek: porneia
Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other. Adultery is one type of fornication.
In every form, fornication was sternly condemned by the Mosaic law among God's people, the Israelites (Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20-11, 23-29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16). (See ADULTERY.)
Fornication is also mentioned many times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4).
"The Greek word for 'fornication' (porneia) could include any sexual sin committed after the betrothal contract. ...In Biblical usage, 'fornication' can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21). Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28)." (Dr. Henry M. Morris)
The word "fornication" is sometimes used in a symbolic sense in the Bible, for example, meaning a forsaking of God or a following after idols (Isa. 1:2; Jer. 2:20; Ezek. 16; Hos. 1:2; 2:1-5; Jer. 3:8-9).

and your link [url=http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-equal-marriage.html]here:

The Bible calls premarital sex “fornication.” It is repeatedly condemned in Scripture along with all other forms of sexual immorality (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 10:8; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes abstinence before marriage as the standard of godliness. Sex before marriage is just as wrong as adultery and other forms of sexual immorality because they all involve having sex with someone other than your spouse.


Paul stated that even having sex with a prostitute (surely the least emotional or commited of sexual relationships) unites your body and hers; deliberately referencing Christ's (and the OT's) description of marriage, and said that if you are having sex with your betrothed you should marry "for it is better to marry than to burn"; that you are expected, as a single person, to exercise self control in the matter.

in the NT they state that premarital sex is wrong. in the OT they state that premarital sex is wrong.

Yes. Sex is that serious,and it is that blatant. Sorry to ruin the party.

 

[Panache]

quite the opposite, the emphasis has been to push pedophilia as far away from homosexuality as possible. argue that pedophilia is homosexuality and a whole host of folks will jump all over you, frothing at the mouth that pedophiliacs are all about control, not homosexuality, etc. etc. etc.

Ok, well that's silly. Guys molesting little boys is homosexual just like guys molesting little girls is heterosexual. I divorce myself from any sexual-liberation-ideology that promotes any such nonsense to the contrary.

not at all. my wife just had a child; we aren't having sex. think that keeps us from being physically affectionate? think i don't hug my family members? my friends?

Well, that is nice, but not really relevant. Clearly the type of intimacy under discussion is of a more sexual nature. I use "physical intimacy" rather than to be inclusive of second and third base, since the Christian culture seems to have included them in their ill-founded sex-phobic concept of sin.

you are typing in a mixture of ancient aramaic, hebrew, and greek? wow. this forum has one heck of a translation program.

My Bible is written in English. If you are talking about the original autographs, than you are not really talking about the Bible, since the autographs were never compiled into a single volume. Such a "Bible" does not exist, and never has, so any discussion of what such a fictional volume may have said is moot.

i'm saying that we are dealing with historians in this section, not theologians.

You have claimed that engaging in sex with a woman means that you are married to her. The Bible on the other hand consistently disagrees with this definition though:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. - Deut. 24:1-4

How can it be detestable for a man to renew his vows with someone he is already married to? God clearly acknowledges the divorce and remarriage. He doesn't regard the woman as still married to the first husband, or this entire passage would make no sense at all.

perusing through your links it is entertaining to note that you cite people who disagree with your thesis on this thread, and even disagree with what you are claiming they say.

Of course they disagree with the thesis of my thread. The entire point was that I was getting links from the mainstream Christian culture that you are supposedly defending. Clearly I am not claiming that the thesis of my thread is supported by mainstream Christian culture. I am claiming that your rebuttal is similarly unsupported by mainstream Christian culture.

All of my links agree that having sex with someone does not mean that you are married to them. You claim otherwise, effectively "claiming to have figured out something that turns on it's head the combined wisdom of generations of scholars who have spent their entire lives devoted to Theology and this particular text;" as you so eloquently put it.

Neither the old, nor the new testament says that premarital sex is wrong. Porneia means "illicit sex," or "sex that is forbidden by law." Premarital sex, was not included in the extremely exhaustive and comprehensive list of "sex forbidden by law."

You can tell that the people who wrote that very biased definition are lying liars quite easily:

"all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21)"

They claim in the link that all of these definitions of fornication can be found in Leviticus 20:10-21. Please tell me which of those 11 verses says anything about premarital sex.

"The Bible calls premarital sex “fornication.”"

This is a bald-faced lie. The Bible never gives premarital sex as a definition of "fornication." It lists a bunch of sexual sins, and then refers to the entire group as "illicit sex" rather than specifying every single one each time.

The inclusion of premarital sex in the word porneia or zanah is a modern assumption with absolutely zero basis in scripture.

Paul stated that even having sex with a prostitute (surely the least emotional or commited of sexual relationships) unites your body and hers; deliberately referencing Christ's (and the OT's) description of marriage

He said that you would share one flesh with her. He didn't say you would be married to her. And if he did say that you would be married to her, why is there anything wrong with marrying a prostitute? If you were married to her, it supposedly wouldn't be a sin to be one flesh with her. Your argument here makes no sense.

and said that if you are having sex with your betrothed you should marry

He never said "if you are having sex with your betrothed." Where do you imagine he said that? And even if he did, you defeat your own argument. He wouldn't have told people who were already married that they should get married.

in the NT they state that premarital sex is wrong. in the OT they state that premarital sex is wrong.

No. They say that illicit sex is wrong. They never say that premarital sex is in any way illicit.

Yes. Sex is that serious,and it is that blatant. Sorry to ruin the party.

No, if it were as blatant as you claim, you would just point to the 11th commandment that says: "Thou shalt not have sex with a woman to whom you are not married" or to the part in the gospel where Jesus says "Verily I say to you, if an unmarried man and an unmarried woman become one flesh, each has sinned against the other."

You can't. Because there is no such verse. Instead you point to things Paul said about uniting your body with prostitutes and it being better to marry than to burn if you are having trouble staying away from the sheep. Allusions to things that you can broadly interpret as suggesting that there is something wrong with premarital sex does not constitute a "blatant" admonishment.

Your argument is especially weak considering that I have a direct commandment from the mouth of God himself telling me that in every situation, without exception, I must do to others (which includes my girlfriend) what I would have her do to me. In fact, this commandment is not just another commandment among many, but is in fact the defining principal that sums up the law in its entirety.

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12

I would have my girlfriend satisfy me sexually. Therefore, I would be remiss in my moral obligation if I did not do my level best to satisfy her sexually.

I love Jesus. He always comes through for me. You couldn't ask for a better wingman. =)