• 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!

Church to rethink bar on sex before marriage.

Dream Angel

Well-Known Member
I dont think this has been posted on the forums..I am sorry if it has, but its almost half four in the morning and I am a little tired for a major search! :eek:

The Church of England has declared that while sex is best kept for marriage, couples who live together and have children without marrying will no longer be regarded as living in sin.
Instead, they will be encouraged to adopt traditional values at special new services in which they will be able to get married and baptise their children.
In the services, couples will exchange vows and then present their babies for christening.

Full article here:-

Church told to rethink bar on sex before marriage - Times Online

Just thought I would post for your thoughts??
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
Just thought I would post for your thoughts??


Nice article! :clap

Technically speaking, Biblically there is no outright prohibition of pre-marital sex. In my understanding, Biblically a man and a woman are considered married when a man takes a wife (they start to live together) and they consummate their relationship with sex. In essence, when they start to live as husband and wife then it is as if they are.

However, one must be careful with this. This doesn't mean that one can go out and have pre-marital sex whenever one wants. I think that to be safe a person should only have sex with the person who they are joined to by a formal marriage ceremony.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I dont think this has been posted on the forums..I am sorry if it has, but its almost half four in the morning and I am a little tired for a major search! :eek:

The Church of England has declared that while sex is best kept for marriage, couples who live together and have children without marrying will no longer be regarded as living in sin.
Instead, they will be encouraged to adopt traditional values at special new services in which they will be able to get married and baptise their children.
In the services, couples will exchange vows and then present their babies for christening.

Full article here:-

Church told to rethink bar on sex before marriage - Times Online

Just thought I would post for your thoughts??
Hmmm. So, are they going to remove the references to fornication from their Bible? On a more serious (and respectful) note, I found this interesting because my husband and I are involved in a missionary program (LDS obviously) here in Salt Lake called the Hispanic Initiative. There are so many Hispanics moving into the Salt Lake City area and the Church is trying to proselytize to them. A lot of them are showing an interest in the Church but have been "living in sin" for years. I've personally met several men and women with as many as three or four children who want to get baptized. Since we believe that sex outside of marriage is sinful, we tell them that they need to get married before they are baptized. Most of them are fine with they idea. Marriage has just never been a big deal to them, and their culture hasn't required it of them. So one week they have a big wedding at the Church, with the kids as flower girls and ring bearers and the next week they're baptized.
 
Last edited:

slave2six

Substitious
Just thought I would post for your thoughts??
I think that any religion that evolves from its original tenets is eventually destined to become something diametrically opposed to what the founders believed. In my mind, I have more respect for hard-line Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Hasidic Jews than I do for liberals of those religions. It's hard to hold onto something without wavering.

I think that this move by the CoE is simply another example that the CoE itself does not have a foundation of values but basically "goes with the flow" so to speak.

At least the hard-liners know where they stand.

It seems to me that the CoE is simply swayed by the winds of society and that they change their dogmas so as not to lose their base of parishioners. Personally, I don't see the point of any religion that is simply a reflection of modern society. May as well just sleep in on Sundays and enjoy the ball game.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Given the majority of people have had pre-marital sex since the 1970s, you can hardly call this move "trendy". Instead, it seems the Church is recognizing a long term change in social customs and adjusting it's teachings accordingly.

Anyone who says the church has no right to change with a changing reality is incomprehensible.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
The Idea of a Church blessed marriage Came late to Christianity.
Prior to that people were certainly Betrothed and married... but it did not involve the church.
Marriages were social rather than religious affairs.

Fornication was certainly disapproved of both by the early church and society. But it had nothing to do with "religious marriage"

It seems the Anglican Church Is simply recognizing the difference between stable relationships ( personal Marriage) and religious marriage. And that the first is no bar to the second.

This would seem to be the same point recognised by the early church.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Seems to me that this is a bit of sticky situation.

Though I agree that the Bible does not specify the big church attended wedding, that merely living as husband and wife makes you "married", the Bible does in fact say to follow secular law so long as it does not conflict with Biblical law.

Now in most places to be "married" one has to go through the legal process (sign the contract).

However, in all fairness, this legal contract is not required for calling your relationship a marriage.
It is only required if you wish to gain the benefits the marriage contract offers.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
The Idea of a Church blessed marriage Came late to Christianity.
Prior to that people were certainly Betrothed and married... but it did not involve the church.
Marriages were social rather than religious affairs.

Fornication was certainly disapproved of both by the early church and society. But it had nothing to do with "religious marriage"

It seems the Anglican Church Is simply recognizing the difference between stable relationships ( personal Marriage) and religious marriage. And that the first is no bar to the second.

This would seem to be the same point recognised by the early church.
You will needs define what you mean by the terms "religious marriage" and "personal marriage"


I prefer to use the term "legal marriage" for the secular contract marriage and "religious marriage" for the all marriages that do not have said contract.

Seems to me that problems arise when people think that in order to be "married" one is required to have the secular legal contract signed and approved.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Instead, it seems the Church is recognizing a long term change in social customs and adjusting it's teachings accordingly.
It's one thing for "The Church" can adjust its teachings according to social customs and another thing for God to. Regardless of what people may think about sex before marriage, it's pretty silly for human beings to decide that God's okay with something just because they are. Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense for "The Church" to just say, "We've decided that we're going to disregard this commandment in the future. It's still a commandment, but since everybody's breaking it, let's just forget about what He wants."?
 

blackout

Violet.
Hmmm. So, are they going to remove the references to fornication from their Bible? On a more serious (and respectful) note, I found this interesting because my husband and I are involved in a missionary program (LDS obviously) here in Salt Lake called the Hispanic Initiative. There are so many Hispanics moving into the Salt Lake City area and the Church is trying to proselytize to them. A lot of them are showing an interest in the Church but have been "living in sin" for years. I've personally met several men and women with as many as three or four children who want to get baptized. Since we believe that sex outside of marriage is sinful, we tell them that they need to get married before they are baptized. Most of them are fine with they idea. Marriage has just never been a big deal to them, and their culture hasn't required it of them. So one week they have a big wedding at the Church, with the kids as flower girls and ring bearers and the next week they're baptized.

Question Katz...
What if they were married by the state, having nothing to do with any church?

Is this "living in sin"?

What "marriage" is and isn't is so arbitrary.

Obviously if a couple has been together for years faithfully they are "married".
And doing a better job of it than so many "isle walkers".

It really su*ks in my opinion,
to accuse good people who live responsibly & lovingly
of living in "sin".

The Legalism of the "churches" is so far out of hand,
that it's all tied up with the "legalisms" of the "State".

Jesus raised up love and despised legalisms.
Could we not do the same?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It's one thing for "The Church" can adjust its teachings according to social customs and another thing for God to. Regardless of what people may think about sex before marriage, it's pretty silly for human beings to decide that God's okay with something just because they are. Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense for "The Church" to just say, "We've decided that we're going to disregard this commandment in the future. It's still a commandment, but since everybody's breaking it, let's just forget about what He wants."?

I suppose what you say makes sense if you begin by first assuming there's a god and then assuming that god has an opinion about pre-marital sex. But I wasn't looking at it that way. To me, the church is merely a social institution that, like most social institutions, is mostly in the business of serving itself. From my standpoint, it's actually commendable -- perhaps even astonishing -- that the Church would pause now and then to consider what might be in the best interests of it's members.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Question Katz...
What if they were married by the state, having nothing to do with any church?

Is this "living in sin"?
I don't believe it is. To me, a state marriage is a marriage. If that has been considered "living in sin," I would agree that something needed to be changed. (Wow! I'm writing in purple!)

It really su*ks in my opinion,
to accuse good people who live responsibly & lovingly
of living in "sin".
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to suck! To me, it's "living in sin" to simply shack up with someone until such time as someone better comes along. But a marriage needn't be blessed by the Church (any church) to be considered valid.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I suppose what you say makes sense if you begin by first assuming there's a god and then assuming that god stoops to have an opinion about pre-marital sex.
Well, most Christian Churches do believe there's a God, don't they? And if they read their Bibles, they know what He thinks of fornication. Naturally, to someone who doesn't believe in God, it's a moot point.

But I wasn't looking at it that way. To me, the church is merely a social institution that, like most social institutions, is mostly in the business of serving itself.
Any church that is in the business of serving itself is in the wrong business. That may be what they're doing, but it's not what they should be doing.

From my standpoint, it's actually commendable -- perhaps even astonishing -- that the Church would pause now and then to consider what might be in the best interests of it's members.
Maybe I need to re-read the article. I obviously missed something. Personally, as a theist and a Christian (or a fake, wannabe Christian, as the case may be), I think that the purpose of any church would be to help its members see what God has said is in their best interest.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Okay, I re-read the article. I didn't miss anything. I just disagree with it. If anybody wants a paragraph by paragraph explanation of where and why, I'll be happy to oblige. I kind of think that everybody would rather just be happy that "the Church" has finally figured out that it knows better about what God wants than God does.
 

blackout

Violet.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to suck! To me, it's "living in sin" to simply shack up with someone until such time as someone better comes along. But a marriage needn't be blessed by the Church (any church) to be considered valid.

You don't suck honey. ;) :hug:

Really though Katz....
WHY would you assume that a couple living together for years, with children, through hardships,
who never felt any need for state documents,
are "simply shacking up together until such time as someone better comes along". ?!?

This notion follows NO logical line of reasoning,
and is blatantly unfair to the couple who has
EXPRESSED THEIR COMMITTMENT IN ACTION.



Oh... and you do look good in Purple! :flirt:
:D
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
You don't suck honey. ;) :hug:
Thanks, but I'm thinking that on this particular subject, you probably do think that my viewpoint does. It doesn't really matter. People are bound to disagree.

Really though Katz....
WHY would you assume that a couple living together for years, with children, through hardships,
who never felt any need for state documents,
are "simply shacking up together until such time as someone better comes along". ?!?
That particular couple probably doesn't qualify as "shacking up together until such time as someone better comes along." On the other hand, what's the big hangup people have with making things legal? I realize that in a lot of cultures, marriage really is treated as unnecessary, but in my opinion, if two people really are committed to each other, there is no logical reason why they shouldn't be willing to make that commitment legally binding. It's a lot harder to end a marriage than it is to just walk out of a long-standing relationship; that's why I think a lot of people just decide to not get married in the first place, just to be on the safe side.

Right now, my daughter, who was raised LDS, is "simply shacking up with someone until such time as someone better comes along." She knows how I feel about her living arrangements, but we have managed to remain on good terms in spite of my feelings. I don't condemn her as being destined for Hell or any such thing. Probably most of the people on RF who know me very well don't find that surprising. I'm willing to leave the judgment in God's hands. On the other hand, I know what He had to say about fornication and so does she. I don't believe it's right.

This notion follows NO logical line of reasoning,
and is blatantly unfair to the couple who has
EXPRESSED THEIR COMMITTMENT IN ACTION.
But I just gave my line of reasoning, and I found it totally logical! :p I would also agree that there are many "committed" unmarried couples, just as there are many "uncommitted" married couples. I would even go so far as to say that neither of these two things are better than the other. To me, though, "committed" and "married" should be the ideal.

So why do you think that a couple who is truly commited should be so opposed to actually getting married? What do you think is holding them back? I mean, if it's "just a piece of paper," why is it so important to them NOT to have that piece of paper?

Oh... and you do look good in Purple! :flirt:
Thank you. next to green, it's my favorite color! Especially Lilac (which, to me, is just a shade of purple).
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Marriage is "evidenced" in a LIVING relationship.

Not a piece of paper, a promise, or a ceremony.
A living relationship is merely a relationship worth turning into a marriage. :) It is not, in and of itself, a marriage, though it is probably no worse in God's eyes than a marriage where there is no commitment, no love and no unity.
 

blackout

Violet.
There are legal reasons some couples might not want to be legally bound.

Not everyone's life is all "nice and neat".

Some people opt for different marital lifestyle alternatives for their own reasons,
just to hold a family/marriage together at all.

Some people also need to "redefine" their marriages to keep them together.
(though I know I am now getting off topic)
 
Top