Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
9 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2009 - 7:12AM #11
Posts: 74

The bible allows pre-marital sex provided the people involved are not already married to someone else.

The bible also allows men to have multiple wives and concubines too though...that sort of thing will get you labelled as some red neck polygamist cult member pretty quickly these days.

For me the only guidline is that whatever fully consenting grown adults do in private is really their own business.



Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  May 06, 2009 - 3:30AM #12
Posts: 109

Jan 10, 2009 -- 3:29AM, dd713 wrote:

....I haven't found any explicit support for the belief that sex outside of marriage (provided neither party is married) is bad. ....I'm interested in a religious reason for abstaining. The whole "sex is sacred" thing seems more relevant,.......I do believe that sex should ideally be a meaningful experience, but I don't see why that should require marriage. ....

If I could take a stab  at it from within a Christian  (albeit somewhat liberal Christian)  perspective, perhaps the key issue for you should be whether by having sex  you can somehow draw closer to Christ while doing so.   Will a particular act of physical love with another person bring you closer to, or  pull you away from,   what God wants for you.    There is nothing wrong with enjoying good food unless it becomes gluttony.   Likewise,  not money, but the love of money, is said to be the root of evil, etc.        The pleasure of full-bore,   physical  sex  would seem to dwarf  that of good food, or even  material possessions  (if it's really great sex),  so the danger here,   of sexual pleasure becoming an "idol",  is even greater than for the other two.

So go ahead and enjoy the pleasure of sex, but resolve that you will do it in the sight of  the God Who has provided it.      I am in a long term relationship with a woman to whom I am not married, and  when  we come together, we stand nude before God and ask His  blessing in Christ  on our physical union, and give thanks  to Him for giving us each other.  Thus our sex act deepens our relationship to God as well as to each other.     This presex prayer also seems to make the sex better!       Could you  in good face offer such a prayer with your partner, given the larger context of that particular instance of the act?  If not, then perhaps abstension in that case is the proper path.

The idea of "saying grace"  before sex may sound a bit silly,   but  a wedding ceremony is really just this kind of prayer, with one's family and community participating in that prayer.  Of course the wedding prayer has much more significance,  since it hopefully covers all  future acts  of sex you will ever do, and  ties these together to the sacred purpose of making a family.    You may not be ready for this,  but don't shut God out of those relationships  you do partake in.  

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2009 - 1:12PM #13
Posts: 1

 Dear dd713 - I jut came across this post - hope you are still checking every once and a while.

Maybe I can give you something to think about as far as what the bible says about abstaining from sex until you are married.

 I would like to start from a different aspect. How many of you have been affected by divorce? The going rate is 50%. Young people today do not want to get divorced like their parents, aunts, uncles, friends, etc.. Society has its solutions - try our the person before you get married, sleep with them so you know they are good in bed, live with them, wait years before you get married - are just some of them. No one goes into a marriage thinking they are going to get divorced - but some do go into thinking, well if it doesn't work, I can get out of it fairly easily.

 In biblical times, Jesus had a discussion with the Pharisee's about divorce. (Matt19:3-8; Mark10:2-9) He explained that Moses allowed them to write a certificate of divorce because of their hardness of heart. So, what is hardness of heart? It is sin. At the root of every divorce, is a state of sin on someone's part. (You would be amazed at the sins we commit everyday - ones that we would never in a million years think are!) Jesus does not dwell on this and preach a parable; he states it and then reminds them that in the beginning it was not that way. So we go to Genesis - where Jesus directed the Pharisees - they knew Scripture well - it was their job.

 So in the beginning we find three very important messages. When God breathed into Adam, He embodied a Spirit. We are made in the Image of God. We are embodied with the image of God. What God made is good - good means to be suitable to a purpose, worthy, virtuous. Virtuous means upright, pure, righteous. So, man takes a unique place in Gods created world. It is far above the angels or the other creatures. Also significant is the language of what John Paul II called the first Nuptial Song. When Adam could find no creature that "was suitable for a purpose", God took a piece of man and made woman. Adam's response was : "At last this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." Adam respected, cherished, and treated the woman with dignity worthy of a creature that was made in the image of God. God gave marching orders at this point :  Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to this wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." With Adam and Eve, humans being made in the Image of God, we also find them in total Communion (an intimate relationship with deep understanding) with God, having been given the Gift of the "other." Here we see the invisible reality of man's joy in the other. The Covenant (not just a contract between two consenting adults) with God, this union, is the beginning of man's entrance into the world establishing the most intimate pattern of the future with an awareness of the gift he is receiving.(TB63)

Then came Original Sin. The interior dimension that we see in Genesis 1:31 - "God saw everything that he had made, and it was good" takes us to the original revelation of the body. Before the fall, the body did not know an interior rupture or opposition between what is sensible (emotionally or intellectually aware) and what is spiritual.

 "In the whole perspective of his own history, man will not fail to confer a nuptial meaning of his own body. Even if this meaning will undergo many distortions, it will always remain at the deepest level. It demands to be revealed in its simplicity and purity, and to be shown in its whole truth, as a sign of the image of God."(TB66) -

There is so much more. If you are interested, we can continue.

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Jul 19, 2009 - 4:32PM #14
Posts: 16

If U are still in search of an answer, I would suggest U look at the references to fornication, which is simply sex outside of marriage. It seems many Christians want to make to avoid this although it is in plan sight throughout the Bible. In today's America is one of the Top Sins committed due to the Push by all those entities that benefit one way or another from it.

Galatians:5:19 states: 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, sedition's, heresies, 21Envying, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

You can translate to a modern version but it doesn't change the act! If these things where easy for us to do, everyone would probably be successful. The fact that most aren't relates to the level of commitment one has in his heart to be True to God and themselves.

It all boils down to Choices, we can Choose to do what he ask of Us or Not! We can pretend, make excuses, fool those around us,etc. But on judgement day it will be there for all to see, plain an simple.

If we took the time to put him first when we are seeking a mate, we would not let our physical craving over-ride our common or spiritual sense of who that other person really is.

His Word is right there in the Bible for all to see, if we allow other to massage it and turn it's clear message around, it is we who will pay the ultimate price, Because Sin is Sin, no matter how defined!

So I would suggest U READ on a regular basis his word daily which will help to suppress the immoral chattering that takes place in ones mind to say that's not what he meant! Find a hobby, running, fishing, knitting, bobsledding, archery, volunteering, whatever it take to get your mind above the waist! Praying U make the Right Choice! U Can Listen to Man or to God, U Choose!

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Jul 19, 2009 - 8:55PM #15
Posts: 8

It seems that a lot of christians do not read their bibles.  Sex before marriage is called fornication and it is wrong.  It is a sin.  See first Corinthians Chapter 5 verse 1 and there are a lot of references to fornication in the bible.  Which again is sex before marriage and it is a sin.  If you attend church ask your pastor.  Fornication has become the forgotten sin because it has become so instilled in the worldly culture of pleasure of the flesh.  This is the sin that people commit that try to ignore it as a sin because they are of the flesh.  Read first corinthians in the bible and it will inform you.  There are other places in the bilble as well.  But remember its call fornication.  God Bless.

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Sep 17, 2009 - 1:15AM #16
Posts: 520

 The bible condemn "pornia" which was used to refer in general to a lot of things considered sexually immoral.  It is sometimes translated fornication, which arguably would be premarital sex, though I just read a wiki file that said some argue that's a modern usage, and is sometimes translated sexual immorality.

As such, I'd say the clearest you're going to get is 1 Cor 7.  From what I read of the chapter, St. Paul is celebate, and there was an issue with some married couples were trying to forgo their sexual relations even in their marriages.  "'Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman"

He starts out the chapter by telling them not to do this.  However throughout he affirms the practice of consecrated virginity, but affirms also that it is not for everyone.

"Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire. ... If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married."

 Notice that he says "Let them be married."  It should be noted that in biblical times there was no dating.  Entering into marriages was a fairly arranged thing, though I don't know how blind it was.  I am under the impression though that most sexual activity prior to marriage was very leud and without commitment.  It was more along the lines of hiring a prostitute.  Basically you became betrothed, were considered husband and wife, but did not have sexual relations with each other and if you separated it would be through a divorce.  Then after getting to know each other, you'd move in together and consumate your marriage.

So its sort of like dating and moving in together, and the ceremony for this wasn't as involved as it is with our weddings today.  So here's the thing.  The only committed relationships there were was marriage.  If people broke up, they officially had a divorce.  Christ comes along and says that from the beginning that was not so, and condemns divorce.    

So sex outside of marriage was pretty leud.  There were brothals and promiscuity and that sort of thing.  Heck, if you look at the societies around that time, it seems that heterosexual men would hire boy prostitutes to satisfy their sexual urges as a way to get off without getting pregnant.  Not to say there weren't female prostitutes.  But I think understanding that there was no such thing as a committed non-marital relationship will give you some incite to the following passage:

"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food," but God will do away with both the one and the other. The body, however, is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body; God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take Christ's members and make them the members of a prostitute? 6 Of course not! (Or) do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For "the two," it says, "will become one flesh." But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. 7 Do you not know that your body is a temple 8 of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?  For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body."  1 Cor 6

I think the big thing Christianity has been dealing with is the perminance of marriage and trying to be happy in marriage.  We're thus spending a lot of time trying to find a good marriage partner so that we don't end up unhappy.  And so the question is, does dating have a place in the life of the Christian, and if so what is that place?  I would argue that if you want to be honest,  it would mean that dating should not be a trial committed relationship.  It should be a period of friendship to get to know the person, enjoy yourself with the person to discern whether to marry the person.  It should not be used as a way to gain the benefits of marriage with only partial committments and up in the air commitments.  That seems to be what Christ was condemning. 

Thus the key is to look at our culture and figure out if dating has an adequate place in the life of a Christian and if so what place is that?  For me, I embrace the courtship movement.  Basically no dating till you're at a point in your life where you'd be soon ready to marry, breaking up if you can't possibly see yourself marrying the person, and not prolonging the courtship out of fear of commitment.  There's such thing as rushing too quickly into marriage, but if you weren't strangers before you began your courtship, I'd say the ideal timeframe of a courtship would be 6 months to 1 year.  If you have to go longer, there would need to be a good impediment to marrying at that time.  I certainly don't judge my friends who had longer courtships.  Heck I don't think engagements should last longer than a year, and mine is lasting almost a year and a half out of necessity.  There's no strict rules.  I think the key is to not blur the line between boyfriend/girlfriend and husband/wife.  And I think its also good to realize that arranged marriages were more successful than most people imagine.  I don't think they're suitible for our culture, but don't think we've suddenly found the key to marital happiness by focusing so heavily on romantic love.  I think we can adequately take the benefits from both and create a suitable system for finding a spouse.

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Sep 26, 2009 - 11:48AM #17
Posts: 57

Once upon a time I wanted to wait for marriage.  These days I don't even want to get married, so there you go.

Let's go back a bit to Biblical times.  When people got married then, did they go to the state and get that piece of paper and exchange rings?  No.  So why should we apply our modern definition of marriage to laws from back then?  Does commitment in a relationship require legal marriage?  No.  Does legal marriage guarantee commitment?  No.  Why does one's commitment have to be state-sanctioned to count?  Why would the sex of two people who've been committed to each other for years be more sinful than the sex of someone who got drunk in Vegas and got married by Elvis, only to regret it the next morning?

Back to the "Biblical times" thing...marriage also wasn't for love.  Half the time young girls were married to men old enough to be their fathers.  Sex was a duty, not a joy.  It was what you did because your husband wanted to get his rocks off and you needed to produce kids.  Few people live in marriages like that anymore.

If waiting is right for a person, then by all means, they should wait.  If they don't feel it's right, they shouldn't be forced into it by a guilt trip involving faulty logic.

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Sep 27, 2009 - 7:35PM #18
Posts: 947

Sep 26, 2009 -- 11:48AM, Katja144 wrote:

Back to the "Biblical times" thing...marriage also wasn't for love.  Half the time young girls were married to men old enough to be their fathers.  Sex was a duty, not a joy.  It was what you did because your husband wanted to get his rocks off and you needed to produce kids.  Few people live in marriages like that anymore.

Possibly, and that's certainly been true in many other societies.  But it's also true that Jewish law says sex is a duty the husband owes the wife.  It says nothing about the other way around.  If the husband fails to provide the wife with enough sexual satisfaction, it's as if he'd failed to provide her with food or clothes, and she's entitled to a divorce.

That certainly sounds like a society where women were expected to like sex, and not just for procreation.  In fact, Judaism explicitly says that sex is a good thing because it brings the couple closer together, and contraception permitted when there's good reason to use it.  Christianity, in contrast, began as a mostly nondoctrinal religion, so did not make any explicit rules about how married couples were supposed to act.  Even Paul's writings, often taken as gospel truth, were his opinions, not necessarily shared by his contemporaries.

Around the beginning of Christianity, celibate sects were gaining ground, and Christianity became infused with the zeitgeist that promoted celibacy.  Hence the church's difficult relationship with, and frequent denial of, sexuality.  It grew out of a milieu that could be said to be like the sexual revolution in reverse.

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Sep 28, 2009 - 2:31PM #19
Posts: 947

Sep 17, 2009 -- 1:15AM, angpuppy wrote:

I am under the impression though that most sexual activity prior to marriage was very leud and without commitment.  It was more along the lines of hiring a prostitute.  Basically you became betrothed, were considered husband and wife, but did not have sexual relations with each other and if you separated it would be through a divorce.  Then after getting to know each other, you'd move in together and consumate your marriage.

Then as now, not everyone necessarily waited for marriage, although they were officially supposed to.  Betrothal was considered enough like marriage that a child conceived during the betrothal would be considered legitimate--even if the betrothal ended with the wedding being called off.  Not waiting may have brought some disapproval, but it wasn't considered the same as sex completely out of wedlock.

Sep 17, 2009 -- 1:15AM, angpuppy wrote:

So its sort of like dating and moving in together, and the ceremony for this wasn't as involved as it is with our weddings today.

Actually, the ceremony was even more involved.  Wedding feasts were a huge affair, with the entire village and relatives from all around being invited.  It was more like a Muslim or Hindu wedding today--very lavish.  Families would save their resources for years to provide a good wedding feast.

It is true, though, that in Biblical cultures there had to be a marriage, or at least an intent to marry, for sex to receive the stamp of legitimacy.

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Sep 29, 2009 - 12:55PM #20
Posts: 222

Please note that my response comes from a No-Pagan devotee of Aphrodite.  I understand that the bulk of this conversation is about the Christian perspective but I think the Kyprian has some advice on ths topic and she put it in the mouth of a good friend's mother:

"You try the shoes on before you buy them."

Sexual compatibility is crucial for relationships but I think that one common view is that if you really love a person you can put sexual incompatibility behind you as a sacrifice to the greater connection your relationship offers.  That to me sounds like the people who advocate arranged marriage and say that you will learn to love your partner in time (of course those people might be right).

When healthy sexual desires/fantasies/kinks/quirks are repressed it can only drive a wedge between a couple.

Quick Reply
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook