Sex Before Marriage

Passerbye said:

So you believe Jesus is a liar? Everything else He said was true. He was perfectly predicted as the Christ. He fulfilled the messianic prophecies, which the statistics of that is akin to picking an electron out of the universe, and it being the exact one you were looking for. It's the fingerprint of the Messiah. He said He was God. The Jews knew what He was saying. How do you figure that He isn't God?

Click to expand...

You are aware, of course that this isn't exclusively a christian forum. We are permitted to believe christ a liar, if we so chose; we're also allowed to tell you how laughable we may believe the "the messiah" to be. Quit ridiculing us for a lacking infatuation with some dude who got himself nailed to a tree.

CaptainXeroid said:

If sex is the only important part of your life, then this might be true. Oh, on the surface, it seems to make sense, but with further scrutiny we realize that following this philosophy will lead to hot sex with people with whom you have little else in common....not exactly the material for a long lasting relationship. When you consider that amount of time a couple actually spends having sex, it's such a insignificant percentage of their time together that it is extremely foolish to base a realtionship on sexual chemistry.

Click to expand...

In a game of hockey, scoring plays take only a few seconds out of the entire game, yet the entire game revolves around it. So it should be no surprise that many people spend much of our time--if we can continue the hockey analogy--figuring out how to carry the rock-hard puck on the long and thin stick, across the slick sheet of ice, around the body of the defensemen, through the legs of the goaltender, and through the opening into the goal. It's all a part of either game.

I do not believe that Jesus was a liar. I believe he was misguided. But we've already talked about this in private Passerbye.

Passerbye said:

And I thought you said you didn't have hard feelings against God.

Where does God condem that? It's like you want to say that just because God doesn't want you to do evil, that it means He doesn't want you to have pleasure either. That's all wrong!!! Sexual activity with the person you are married to is GOOD!!! It even says in the Bible that a husband's body is not just his own, but his wifes; and a wifes body is not just her own, but her husbands. Is this understood?

Click to expand...

MY feelings are that for some people it is wrong and for some it is not. Sex is about giving. When sex is "taking" it falls outside the sphere in which God placed it. If sex is about strengthening the bonds of intimacy in a marriage, and it's not about taking, the boundaries are only where the individuals get uncomfortable. For some this excludes oral sex, for some it does not. I believe that kind of decision is between the couple to decide.

I've never done this so I can not relate. but i don't think i could it would make me feel dirty and guilty. and I realy don't think god would appriciate it.

It's one of the ten commandments thou shall not commit aldultery. I'ts wrong because of this.

Mattew 5:27,28
"you have heard that it was said do not commit adultery.
But I tell you that any one who looks at a woman lustfuly has already commited adultery wither her in his heart.

Touche' Passerbye! Have at you! (but read this)
In modern times, several passages in the Bible are used as justification for condemning "fornication." However, "porneia," the word used in the Greek Bible, actually had many meanings such as whoremongering and excessive, illicit sex, and not simply casual sex between couples, as is pointed out by Brundage: Several passages in the Gospels condemn porneia. This word carried a number of different meanings. At times porneia means prostitution, at other times it refers to non-marital sex in general.(17) It is difficult to be certain, for example, whether the term applied to premarital intercourse between persons betrothed to one another or, indeed, to any type of non-commercial, heterosexual relations of the kind conventionally labeled fornication. Since neither the Torah nor rabbinical teachers contemporary with Jesus prohibited intercourse between unmarried partners as a moral offense, perhaps porneia referred primarily to sex with prostitutes, adultery, and other promiscuous relationships (18) (Brundage 1987: 58).
Regarding sexual liberties which were taken by the early Church, we know that they did have some trouble with "wild fire" in certain quarters, as indicated by Saint Paul's rebuke to the Corinthians, where reports of fornication and incest were quite common: It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1).

Saint Paul subscribed marriage as a solution to such excesses: Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband (1 Corinthians 7:2).

Much of Paul's conservatism may be attributed not only to his strict Pharisaic background, but also to the fact that most of his Greek and Asian converts had come out of cultures in which male and female temple prostitution were noble professions. And, sexual excesses and orgies were a way of life amongst the pagans of the Near East. This is why many scholars interpret a number of New Testament references to "fornicators" to be specifically talking about "(male) temple prostitutes," not inclusive of all those who engage in sex with a partner to whom they are not married.

Paul's pronouncements regarding sex, as applied by sexually conservative Christians, come in direct conflict with the central theme of the Epistles. We believe that Jesus has utterly delivered us from the old Mosaic laws and purity requirements, against sex between consenting men and women. For "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the (Mosaic) Law" (Galatians 3:13), "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us (the old Law), which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross" (Colossians 2:14).

Surprisingly, sex between singles was not viewed as being as sinful as masturbation in the Middle Ages, at least by some. However, David A. Schulz and Dominic S. Raphael in their article, Christ and Tiresias: A Wider Focus on Masturbation, make the following historic observation: In other cultures less restrictive (than Western cultures) by tradition, parents even encourage self-stimulation by playing with the genitals of infants. The medieval printmaker Hans Baldung Grien, shocks many Christians today because he incorporated this custom into his portrait of the Holy Family. In his picture, Saint Anne stimulates the genitals of her grandson, Jesus, while His mother and father look on (19) (Feuerstein, 1989: 222).

Still, according to Aquinas, masturbation was a greater sin than fornication. The death of Judah's son, Onan, who "spilled his seed" (i.e., performed coitus interruptus) rather than willingly impregnate his widowed sister-in-law as custom required, is often mistakenly pointed out as the example of how displeasing to God masturbation must be.

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy (deceased) brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore He slew him (Genesis 38:8-10).

Read in context, however, one quickly sees that what provoked God to slay Onan was his selfishness, greed and sexual withholding and refusing to sexually accommodate Tamar, his brother's widow, not wanting her to have any children to inherit part of the family property. In slaying Onan, God was intent that Tamar receive justice, but He also had another reason to be particularly concerned about her success in love-making; she was chosen to be an ancestor of Jesus. As a spicy epilogue, Tamar assisted God's purpose by posing as a prostitute, thereby luring Judah to fulfill his Godly duty (Genesis 38:13-26).

Obviously you, or just the people you are listening to, don’t want it to mean fornication. We can’t interpret the Bible based on what we want. We are evil, so of course we would want to say that we can do evil and it wouldn’t be evil. This, however, is wrong. We need to listen to God, not ourselves. If there’s a spirit trying to lead you into thinking that this isn’t evil then it’s not the Holy Spirit. We are told by Paul to test the spirits to see if they are from God. This spirit has proven false. Repent and move on. And don't worry about it. These days things are becoming so muttled by people that false doctrin is almost everywhere. It's crazy. Just try to be more prepared next time. Ask God to help you with that.

Click to expand...

More prepared eh? OK!!! Here ya go! I didn't want to have to pull out the BIG GUNS, but you asked for it. GRAB A SEAT AND POP SOME POPCORN CAUSE THIS ONE IS GOING TO TAKE YOU A WHILE TO READ. Matter of fact this thing is so long that it would take up at least 2 thread pages to post it. So here's the link to this page. http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/books/book5/main.htm. Contained in this link is an outline written by scholars, theologins, and clergy, regarding the subject of sex and the Bible. It give a detailed explanation of how things such as premarital sex, became repressed and taboo since the formation of the Christian religion. And I appreciate your concern for my spiritual welfare, but let's get something straight. I HAVE prayed to God about this. I HAVE asked for guidance. And God has led me here. I told God that I want the TRUTH and not any preconceived opinions. I HAVE tested the spirits. Have you? Maybe the spirit that's making you feel guilty about this is evil. After all, the Bible states that Satan is the accuser of our brothers. We can sit here and poke holes at each others arguments until we're blue in the face. I have defended my argument and corroborated my stance with outside resources. You have yet to provide anything other than your personal opinion, in regards to refuting the claims of my outside resources. Present me with a resource that can provide an intelligent rebuttal. I can give a list of books that provide a VERY convincing argument against the conservitive Christian view. The evidence is there. You don't have to accpet it. I do however, suggest you take a step back and be honest with yourself. Could I be wrong? Sure. But you could also be wrong. And I feel I have a good job of presenting a case in favor of the conservative Christian view being wrong. I feel no need to defend my stance any further. There is too much gray area on the subject and there is too much evidence against your argument. Which is something you should take the time to realize. It's ok. Repent and move on. And don't worry about it. These days things are becoming so muttled by people that false doctrin is almost everywhere. It's crazy. Just try to be more prepared next time. Ask God to help you with that.

There's something else I want to make clear. I am NOT promoting humping whom ever you feel like. I'm NOT promoting polygamy. I'm NOT promoting porn. I'm NOT promoting cheating on your significant other. And I'm NOT promoting that waiting until marriage for sex is a bad idea. Waiting for marriage is probably the more wiser of the 2 choices. BUT! ....if 2 people LOVE each other.....and they engage in sex......and they are not yet married.......it's is fine. The Bible does not condemn that particular act. It does, however, imply and suggest that it would be wise to wait until you sure that you want to be with that person forever ( and I say "want to be with that person" instead of "going to be with that person" because nothing in this life is for certain, hence divorce). I think CaptainXeroid summed this up best. "Mister_T, while it is true that some churches and religions teach that pre-marital sex is evil and going to earn you eternal damnation, I believe the scriptures teach us to wait because it is the best choice for US. I don't think God is trying to ruin our fun but rather telling us what is best for us...waiting until marriage. By waiting, people eliminate the chance of having an unwanted pregnancy, STDs, or hurt feeling knowing that your partner has had relations with other people" . EACH PERSON, DEEP DOWN KNOWS WHAT IS RIGHT, AND WHAT IS WRONG FOR THEM. God Bless.

So, define love. When God comes calling and I say, "It's OK, we're in love", I want the criteria so that I know I qualify to have pre-marital sex. So how do you objectively qualify love?

dan said:

So, define love. When God comes calling and I say, "It's OK, we're in love", I want the criteria so that I know I qualify to have pre-marital sex. So how do you objectively qualify love?

Click to expand...

:areyoucra I didn't know there was a criteria to being in love?! If you don't know the difference between love and lust I don't know what to tell you. Look, if you feel that having premarital sex is bad, don't do it. Plain and simple. But if waiting until marriage doesn't work for somebody else (there are some good reasons for not waiting and if somebody wants to go there I will) zip your lip cause it ain't condemned in the Bible. It is vaguley implied and I already made a good case for my argument.

I don't know why you're throwing an accusation at me. You're making a statement about your ethics and I'm trying to see if you've thought it all the way through. You're statement is this:

"Waiting for marriage is probably the more wiser of the 2 choices. BUT! ....if 2 people LOVE each other.....and they engage in sex......and they are not yet married.......it's is fine."

So LOVE is the criteria that make pre-marital sex permissable in your eyes. That means that if two people are not in love it is not ok. I want to know by what criteria you define love; because this qualification is the difference between a horrible sin and "it's is fine".

People who condone pre-marital sex always say the same exact thing: It's is ok if you're in LOVE. What does it mean to be in love? I propose that this justification is a meaningless rationalization, because love is not a tangible thing, nor is it definable. God is yay or nay. He is black or white. He requires baptism for salvation, ordination for administration and marriage for sex. If you want to argue that it's ok to have sex if you're in LOVE then define love so we can have a consistent, definable moment when we are able to engage in such relations.

dan said:

I don't know why you're throwing an accusation at me. You're making a statement about your ethics and I'm trying to see if you've thought it all the way through. You're statement is this:

"Waiting for marriage is probably the more wiser of the 2 choices. BUT! ....if 2 people LOVE each other.....and they engage in sex......and they are not yet married.......it's is fine."

So LOVE is the criteria that make pre-marital sex permissable in your eyes. That means that if two people are not in love it is not ok. I want to know by what criteria you define love; because this qualification is the difference between a horrible sin and "it's is fine".

People who condone pre-marital sex always say the same exact thing: It's is ok if you're in LOVE. What does it mean to be in love? I propose that this justification is a meaningless rationalization, because love is not a tangible thing, nor is it definable. God is yay or nay. He is black or white. He requires baptism for salvation, ordination for administration and marriage for sex. If you want to argue that it's ok to have sex if you're in LOVE then define love so we can have a consistent, definable moment when we are able to engage in such relations.

Click to expand...

If you are willing to marry that person. If you're willing to be with that person in a monogamus (hope I spelled that right) relationship forever, I would say that's love. When there is no one else you would rather be with. I would say that's love. If you were willing to be in a long term relationship....I'd say that's boderline. If you're not sure you want to be in a long term relationship....not love. Some people fall in love faster than others so I really can't set any boundries as to when it's appropiate. But each indvidual knows when there in love. But they should be positive that their partner feels the same way. Remember no realtionship is guranteed to last. Not even marriage. Which is why divorce exists. Either way feeling will be put on the line. Just curious. Is your view on baptism strictly an LDS belief? Last time I checked the only thing needed for salvation was the acceptance of Christ as your Savior. Baptism means that you are commiting your life to follow God.

There's 2 different types of sex. 1st is the caring, touching, slow love making thinking only of your partner and bringing them to extreme pleasue.... then.... there's pig sex. "Honey, lock the doors, we gonna break some furniture!" It's just out for yourself sex. And if both people are consenting adults, married or not, it's their choice. And yes, pig sex is fun when married too.

Mister_T said:

Last time I checked the only thing needed for salvation was the acceptance of Christ as your Savior. Baptism means that you are commiting your life to follow God.

Click to expand...

This is not the thread to open that can of worms...

Mister T - Those covenants you mentioned at the beginning of you post are what marriage is. God requires that ceremony as a show of that commitment, just like baptism is required as a show of your commitment to Him. Your actions testify of your convictions, and God requires you to act.

As for baptism - Christ said you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven unless you are born of water and of the spirit (John 3:5). He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). The Pharisees rejected the counsel of God by not being baptized (Luke 7:30). Baptism saves us (I Peter 3:21). The only scripture you have is misinterpreted to mean an utterance is all that is needed. If you would like me to expound then let me know. Yours is an apostate doctrine and it is false. Baptism is followign the example of Christ. If Christ (being perfect) had to humble himself and be baptized by an imperfect being, who are you to say you are above baptism and still merit salvation. Your arrogance is astounding, and it will keep salvation from you if it persists.

Wiccan kid - Yes it is everyone's choice. We have agency.

Mister_T, I have looked at the site you provided and all it says is that the word has many meanings. It talks mostly about how sexually bad things were back then, and tries to make it look like the word got that meaning over time and didn't have it already. I agree that there were sick sexual things going on back then, but all you give are opinions of people who think that this could have happened. There is no proof that it did. I have not seen one speck of it.

You are correct that the word Porneia has many meanings (I listed them); however, when there is nothing guiding the meaning toward any one thing then it encompasses all of what it means in the context of what the person is saying. Thus, if the word Porneia meant all that it does today back then, and I see no reason why it shouldn't (even with the long arguments you have given) then we have to accept it as what it is, because there seems to be nothing but speculation as to what it isn't, and no factual basis for such speculation. If I have missed some proof please bring it to my attention.

Although the Old Testament seems to say nothing on this subject, as it also seems to say nothing on slavery directly. Life, however, does make slavery seem like a bad thing. The practice of slavery was so common and ingrained into people that God just made it seem like a bad idea and let it gradually fade out. It was even allowed in the New Testament, however it showed it as more of a bad idea and gradually let it fade out. Would anyone here be able to say that the Bible makes slavery look like a good idea? Would anyone here say that slavery is a good idea? Slavery is wrong, but it had to be fazed out instead of abolished. The more horrible things had to be gotten rid of first. The New Testament makes it clear that sex outside of marriage is wrong, by using the word it did. The Old Testament is not so clear on the subject. The New Testament didn’t even make polygamy illegal. It did, however, make it look like a bad idea.

As it is written, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.” James 4:17. The laws in the Old Testament were made for man, not for God. They were made so man would know what is good, what is true, and what is good for the body too. It made illegal things that were extremely unhealthy in the conditions they lived in (such as pork and shellfish). These things have a deeper meaning (midrash), but they also mean what they say at face value (what separates midrash from Gnosticism). They kept the Jews in better health than any other people of their time; and yet not scare them with the idea of tiny things that they can’t see constantly on them at all times eating away at them and in what they eat (germs). The rules were for them to do well in their existence, not for God. It’s not just something to make God feel better (although He does feel better when we listen to Him). We have guidelines for living for our own good, just as they did. Although, there are things that are explicitly sins, according to God, in all situations containing them. If we don’t do what is right then we sin. If we do it as a habit then we are rejecting God, once again. We are not taking His advice. His advise is what is good. If you want to have sex outside of marriage then go ahead. I don’t recommend it at all, and neither does God, from what I have seen. If you don’t accept the recommendation of God and you do what is wrong, then you sin. Sin has consequences. Sin doesn’t need God to punish people. Sin can do that itself.

Laws are there for a reason. They are there as protection a lot of the time. Why is homosexual sex not good? Well, it’s not what we were made for. It’s unnatural. Outside of that it tends to be very unhealthy for the body, and for the mind too. Because it is unnatural and that makes it such a bad sin we know that it is bad for the spirit too. Unhealthy for body, soul, and spirit. What a bad thing. It’s the same with masturbation. God says nothing on this; however, we know it to be not good for a persons mind or body. Is it permissible in situations? I think it could be in some, though I won’t give examples. Does that make it good in all situations? No. However, if it’s an addiction then the person is mastered by it and Paul warned against that. That is wrong. I use to be mastered by soda… then only Pepsi and Sunkist tasted good… then only Sunkist tasted good… and then none of it tasted good, but I drank Sunkist anyway. I was mastered by soda. That made it a sin. That makes masturbation a sin. That makes smoking a sin (as well as other factors.) That can make anything a sin.

I think I did it again. I said too much, and on too many subjects, all at once. I tend to do that, especially when it comes to trying to tell what is sin and what is not. I hope I explained what I was trying to. If something’s unclear please point it out.

I would also like to add something to what I have previously said. I said that in a marriage a person's body belongs equally to himself as to his wife, and a wife's to her husband. I was wrong on this. It is complete summation on this subject. Your body is hers and not your own, and hers is yours and not her own. This makes much more sense; a complete giving of your body over to your partner. This would prevent the bad that tends to erupt from the "not now Honey, I'm too tired" excuse, when the husband needs her; or the "I'm too busy right now darling, can you get me an sandwich?" problem that gets the woman too worked up and sends her over to the husbands best friend; as well as the problem with your partner not wanting to do something for you because it seems "icky", or "smelly", or "doesn't taste good" (happens with guys and girls). A proper relationship would keep the partner from behaving wrongly toward their spouse. That would keep the power struggle from getting unequal, and keep them together, at home, instead of away with other people from lack of sexual satisfaction. Doesn’t it make much more sense? Ain't God great? Praise the LORD! Genius! God’s understandings of things are great, even if we don't see anywhere near all of it!

passerby said:

Although the Old Testament seems to say nothing on this subject, as it also seems to say nothing on slavery directly.

Click to expand...

Ohhh...try again.

Ohhh...try again.

Click to expand...

I meant on how keeping slaves shouldn't be practiced. The fact that man should not be over man in that way.

People who condone pre-marital sex always say the same exact thing: It's is ok if you're in LOVE.

Click to expand...

I condone pre-marital sex and I don't care if people are in love or not. As long as their consenting adults, they can do whatever they please. They can have sex just for fun for all I care. I've done it.