• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Living With Your Significant Other Before Marriage

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Do you think that living with your significant other before marriage is a sin? Even if your intentions are to evaluate how compatible you two are together before "tying the knot"?

Living together is not really the issue. Having sex is the issue.

To get specific in biblical terms, HAVING SEX IS GETTING MARRIED.

No ceremony is actually necessary or required by biblical law for two to become man and wife -A man and woman becoming one flesh by intercourse is the basic requirement. (The law was intended for the originally-intended state of distinct males and females -those truly intersex in any way would need to apply the law according to their actual individual situation)

(Having many wives was not actually sanctioned by God)

Living together or apart is not a sin.

Two people having sex without being certain that they intend to remain with each other for life is sin (though some have been duped and used by another) -whether they live together or not.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Living together is not really the issue. Having sex is the issue.

To get specific in biblical terms, HAVING SEX IS GETTING MARRIED.

No ceremony is actually necessary or required by biblical law for two to become man and wife -A man and woman becoming one flesh by intercourse is the basic requirement. (The law was intended for the originally-intended state of distinct males and females -those truly intersex in any way would need to apply the law according to their actual individual situation)

(Having many wives was not actually sanctioned by God)

Living together or apart is not a sin.

Two people having sex without being certain that they intend to remain with each other for life is sin (though some have been duped and used by another) -whether they live together or not.

Very interesting. I think that flesh is not really meant in the Bible but moreso to be united as one body as Christ loved the church and His Love for the church was a spiritual love. So I take it to mean that the Bible is promoting spiritual love as what should unite husband and wife because in time sexual powers decrease and fade away but spiritual love is lasting.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Very interesting. I think that flesh is not really meant in the Bible but moreso to be united as one body as Christ loved the church and His Love for the church was a spiritual love. So I take it to mean that the Bible is promoting spiritual love as what should unite husband and wife because in time sexual powers decrease and fade away but spiritual love is lasting.

A thorough study will show that the flesh really is meant in the bible.....

There is a spiritual aspect -which is the commitment to the union, etc., but they are not talking about having an emotional connection or spiritual commitment to a hooker in the following...

"........ Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
A thorough study will show that the flesh really is meant in the bible.....

There is a spiritual aspect -which is the commitment to the union, etc., but they are not talking about having an emotional connection or spiritual commitment to a hooker in the following...

"........ Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

It’s saying to me that spiritual marriage is the ideal when it says ‘shall I then take (our bodies) which are for use for Christ and make them as use for a harlot (sex)

It’s very clear that this verse is questioning those who use their bodies only for material sex as with a prostitution instead of dedicating their lives and marriages to the Lord.

‘But he that is joined to the Lord’ clearly to me is promoting spiritual marriage as opposed to sexy for pleasure as with a harlot.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you think that living with your significant other before marriage is a sin?
No.

And it worked brilliantly for me.
Even if your intentions are to evaluate how compatible you two are together before "tying the knot"?
I doubt either of us thought of it as an experiment or some kind of exam. It was something we both thought was a natural development of the relationship.

If it hadn't worked out, then it would have dissolved itself anyway.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
No I don't and I don't think the church is any position at all to give the rest of us lectures on sexual morality. The whole position of the church on sex is incoherent, based as it largely is on inherited ideas from the centuries before contraception uncoupled sex from procreation.

I believe procreation is only the tip of the iceberg. Christians are in the best position to say what is relevant today because Jesus is with us.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Once you're living together, you've pretty much tied the knot as far as I'm concerned.

I believe if I had a sister I would have lived with her without sex. I believe only a vow before God ties the knot. All else is like a promissory note, easily broken.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Marriage ties together all sorts of legal issues very well, so is probably justified in this litigious world.
Marriage is not necessarily religious in nature, but it can be considered so.
Living together and sex is neither wrong nor sinful.
Some religions set high store on regulating sexual relationships of all kinds.
Those they can not control they define as sinful.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Living together is not really the issue. Having sex is the issue.

To get specific in biblical terms, HAVING SEX IS GETTING MARRIED.
If you and your partner both feel this way, fine for you, but you're going to run into problems if you try to impose it on others.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
If you and your partner both feel this way, fine for you, but you're going to run into problems if you try to impose it on others.
Precisely! Agreement is absolutely necessary -and the whole point.
Imposing things on others does not make for a good marriage -as evidenced by many bad marriages.

That is part of the spiritual aspect.

My point is that intercourse is the only biblical requirement for two to become man and wife -and the point at which they do literally become man and wife.

If the two are not in agreement or consenting -or any such thing, it is certainly to be considered.

IDEALLY and as originally intended -Two consent to be husband and wife (spiritual) -and then become husband and wife (physical). That is how things work best for individuals and society when the creation is as intended. That is why it is the law in the first place.

The creation is not now always as originally intended in regard to the state of individuals -and individuals do not always do things the way God would want them to do things.

Technically.... two individuals unable to have intercourse could have a spiritual commitment/marriage, but as intercourse is not to be taken lightly when possible -as it is intended to produce more beings into a stable and beneficial environment, it is the point at which two need to remain together exclusively for that purpose.
 
Last edited:

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
It’s saying to me that spiritual marriage is the ideal when it says ‘shall I then take (our bodies) which are for use for Christ and make them as use for a harlot (sex)

It’s very clear that this verse is questioning those who use their bodies only for material sex as with a prostitution instead of dedicating their lives and marriages to the Lord.

‘But he that is joined to the Lord’ clearly to me is promoting spiritual marriage as opposed to sexy for pleasure as with a harlot.
The writer is certainly making a spiritual analogy based on the physical fact that when a person has intercourse with a prostitute they become one FLESH.
That is why it is not OK to have sex with everyone as long as you have a spiritual marriage to one.
(It is also the idea behind a marriage being consummated or not.) The physical act is indicated in the bible to be the point at which two people actually become man and wife -though there is certainly a more important spiritual aspect (at least hopefully).
Ceremonies are awesome -but not actually required by biblical law.
 
Last edited:

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
The writer is certainly making a spiritual analogy based on the physical fact that when a person has intercourse with a prostitute they become one FLESH.
That is why it is not OK to have sex with everyone as long as you have a spiritual marriage to one.
(It is also the idea behind a marriage being consummated or not.) The physical act is indicated in the bible to be the point at which two people actually become man and wife -though there is certainly a more important spiritual aspect (at least hopefully).
Ceremonies are awesome -but not actually required by biblical law.

Yes I think I see what you mean. In our Faith although the emphasis is on a spiritual relationship, the marriage is supposed to be consumed physically within 24 hours to validate it. But there must be a wedding contract and ceremony before the physical union.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Marriage ties together all sorts of legal issues very well, so is probably justified in this litigious world.
Marriage is not necessarily religious in nature, but it can be considered so.
Living together and sex is neither wrong nor sinful.
Some religions set high store on regulating sexual relationships of all kinds.
Those they can not control they define as sinful.

I believe living together is not sinful, Sex is not sinful. Living together and performing sex is sinful. Performing sex outside marriage between a man and a woman is sinful.

I believe we agree with what what God tells us.

I believe that is a non-sequitur.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
Do you think that living with your significant other before marriage is a sin? Even if your intentions are to evaluate how compatible you two are together before "tying the knot"?

We were pleased our two married daughters, both Christians, lived with their partners for a couple of years before getting married. I don't see anything wrong in that at all.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Do you think that living with your significant other before marriage is a sin? Even if your intentions are to evaluate how compatible you two are together before "tying the knot"?
I do think it is a sin. I have been divorced for decades and I live celibately, so I'm not a hypocrite in this matter. I understand that I live in a society that does not embrace my personal religion, so I don't push my morals on others. But if the occasion arises where the subject comes up, as it has right now, I'll say my piece.

1. Sex makes children. Even protected sex goes awry, including the pill. And often people who use protected sex "forget" to use it in the passion of the moment. Children do not deserved to be born into a relationship that is not committed. They thrive is stable families and deserve the best, not some throwaway "we're together until we're not" relationship.

2. Sex is one of the most emotionally powerful things on the planet. Very few women can have sex without becoming bonded, and not a few men either. The problem is, one we start having sex, the time for getting to know each other on a deeper level seems to end, as sex becomes the substitute for genuine intimacy. It introduces VOLATILITY into the relationship. What would normally be sadness upon breaking up becomes broken hearts, even devastation. A relationship where no sex has been introduces can more often than not return to friendship, but not so with the sexual relationship. This is why the sexual relationship needs to be protected by commitment, a pair bonding. For some of us, pair bonding comes quite natural. For others, it has to be worked at a little more. But for all of us, pair bonding comes out ahead in reducing the harmful effects of the sexual relationship.

They need to bring back common law marriage.
 
Last edited:

JChnsc19

Member
I have always found this an interesting subject. The word fornication didn’t show up in print until 1300 in the Oxford dictionary. And the original definition for the ancient Greeks was prostitute, not sex before marriage as most religions today use it. I think it’s a word that has been twisted for use in regions for control.

Fornication - Wikipedia
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
Sex is an important part of a relationship, so it is important to find out before you tie the knot if you are suited in that way.
 
Top