Benefit of Waiting till Marriage to Have Sex

[WolfGate]

I understand. But those circular links all work like a math equation. If you start with the idea that "sexual immorality" meant pre-marriage sex, all your answers will be wrong.

I understand that presumption of your second sentence and how that applies to many of the "sexual immorality" verses people will choose. That is specifically why I choose the verses I did, because that presumption does not have to be there.

Go back to the logic:

Paul said if you burn with passion you should marry. However, if pre-marital sex were OK, then the solution (in fact the simplest, quickest solution) to burning with passion would include pre-marital sex. But it does not. The choices are clear and there are two. Deal with it or get married.

 

[Kol]

I understand that presumption of your second sentence and how that applies to many of the "sexual immorality" verses people will choose. That is specifically why I choose the verses I did, because that presumption does not have to be there.

Go back to the logic:

Paul said if you burn with passion you should marry. However, if pre-marital sex were OK, then the solution (in fact the simplest, quickest solution) to burning with passion would include pre-marital sex. But it does not. The choices are clear and there are two. Deal with it or get married.

"Deal with it?" Very well, I shall. Let me follow Paul's argument line by line, starting from 1Cor 6:12.

12: You claim it's alright to do anything you want, but the problem is that not everything is good for you.
13: You say, "we have a stomach for a reason." True, but the body is not made for (word of the day), but instead for the Lord.

If the word of the day means unsanctioned sex, why set it in antithesis against "The Lord?" Why not say "but instead, the body is meant for marriage?" Rather, Paul said "the body isn't made for immorality, the body is made for the Lord." Paul was talking about giving the body to a temple prostitute, which is why he goes on to talk about uniting Christ with a prostitute. "The body isn't meant for (fill in the god), but instead for the Lord."

14: God raised the Christ with His power, and He will do the same to us.
15: Your bodies are part of Christ's body. Don't unite them with a prostitute.
16: Sex is union. Unite with the Lord, not a prostitute.

If Paul is talking about anything other than a temple prostitute, he makes a very strange message. "Don't be one with a prostitute, be one with the Lord." Why contrast two dissimilar things? He even makes this clearer when he adds on about being one with the Lord in spirit. The union being avoided was a spiritual one (temple prostitutes), therefore the logical answer is a spiritual one. Otherwise, why wouldn't he go ahead and jump into his message of each man having his own wife? Married men still went to temple prostitutes, that's why.

18: Flee from "sexual immorality." This sin affects your body.

What body? The body mentioned in v15, Christ's body. The focus is spiritual, and the spiritual union that comes from the temple prostitutes.

19, 20: Your bodies are temples. Honor God with them.

Chapter 7, 1-5: You say it's good to not have sex, but because there is so much of ^this going on, you should each have your own wives (or husbands) and have intercourse with her(/him). Don't withhold each other's bodies, because you belong to each other.

So Paul is definitely talking about temple prostitutes and not pre-marital sex. He says absolutely nothing (here) about getting married; he is talking to people who are already married. Verse 5 nails...er, uh, clarifies what he means: "Don't deprive each other." People were withholding sex from their spouses, which is why he has to command them not to do so.

Finally, in verse 8, Paul begins to talk about unmarried people. What should they do? Get married if they want to; and yes (again) that's the best option. See Genesis. But Paul says nothing after suggesting marriage about sin, atonement, Christ, the power of God, or any of that. There is no mentioning about "sinning against his own body."

Sexual relationships are clearly intended for marriage (or possibly vice-versa). But there is never any mention of pre-marital sex being sinful. "If you can't control yourself, then dude, go ahead and get married" is a far cry from what everyone is trying to say.

 

[JRSut1000]

Oh my, it woulda been an interesting conversation...but the topic was statistics and it doesnt seem to be statistics anymore but rather whether the Bible calls sin sin or something else. I'm not surprised at anything anymore.

 

[LinkH]

If the word of the day means unsanctioned sex, why set it in antithesis against "The Lord?" Why not say "but instead, the body is meant for marriage?" Rather, Paul said "the body isn't made for immorality, the body is made for the Lord." Paul was talking about giving the body to a temple prostitute, which is why he goes on to talk about uniting Christ with a prostitute. "The body isn't meant for (fill in the god), but instead for the Lord."

14: God raised the Christ with His power, and He will do the same to us.
15: Your bodies are part of Christ's body. Don't unite them with a prostitute.
16: Sex is union. Unite with the Lord, not a prostitute.

If Paul is talking about anything other than a temple prostitute, he makes a very strange message. "Don't be one with a prostitute, be one with the Lord." Why contrast two dissimilar things? He even makes this clearer when he adds on about being one with the Lord in spirit. The union being avoided was a spiritual one (temple prostitutes), therefore the logical answer is a spiritual one.

Paul does bring up the case of sleeping with a harlot. He doesn't specify she has to be a temple prostitute. I just had a look at the Wikipedia article on prostitution in ancient Greece. According to that, the Greeks had prostitutes that weren't associated with the temple, including pornai. There is no reason to think that Paul is restricting his teaching only to temple prostitution.

Nothing in this passage indicates that 'pornia' means only sleeping with prostitutes. The woman who loses his virginity and allows herself to be married off as if she were a virgin had played the harlot in her father's house.

In these verses fornication is connected with 'touching' a woman, not just a prostitute.

I Corinthians 7
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Paul is going into a more general topic after addressing the issue of sleeping with a prostitute.

Otherwise, why wouldn't he go ahead and jump into his message of each man having his own wife? Married men still went to temple prostitutes, that's why.

That doesn't make much sense in context. Paul goes on to contrast celibacy to marriage. If married men still went to prostitutes, how would each man having his own wife be an argument against going to prostitutes?

18: Flee from "sexual immorality." This sin affects your body.

What body? The body mentioned in v15, Christ's body. The focus is spiritual, and the spiritual union that comes from the temple prostitutes.

Paul says that he that commits fornication sins against his own body. It is the individuals body he talks about here.

So Paul is definitely talking about temple prostitutes and not pre-marital sex. He says absolutely nothing (here) about getting married; he is talking to people who are already married.

What you are saying does not fit with these verses.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

The issue here is whether to be married or not.

Verse 5 nails...er, uh, clarifies what he means: "Don't deprive each other." People were withholding sex from their spouses, which is why he has to command them not to do so.

That may have been a problem. It still is in many marriages. But Paul says 'it is good for a man not to touch a woman.' He is not talking ONLY about prostitutes here. He is also talking about marital sex.

Finally, in verse 8, Paul begins to talk about unmarried people. What should they do? Get married if they want to; and yes (again) that's the best option. See Genesis. But Paul says nothing after suggesting marriage about sin, atonement, Christ, the power of God, or any of that. There is no mentioning about "sinning against his own body."

Where does Paul mention fornication after verse 8?


I Corinthians chapter 5 absolutely disproves the idea that 'fornication' is limited only to the concept of temple prostitution or prostitution in general. A man was fornicating in a way that did not occur among the pagans, because he had his father's wife, not his father's prostitute.

 

[Johnnz]

Sex outside of marriage was a social norm for the better off in NT times. Ones wife was for production of an heir and to maintain status. Temple prostitutes, mistresses some even living in the family home, one's slaves were commonplace. Pornia had quite wide application in Roman society. Christians advocated marriage and sexual faithfulness, and thus taught this as the biblical norm. Some in Roman society mocked the Christians for their devotion to each other.

John
NZ

 

[Kol]

On topic, I couldn't find any reliable stats, and IDK if they would be available. The issue is centered around either Christianity promoting celibacy before marriage, or what should be taught to school children.

Paul does bring up the case of sleeping with a harlot. He doesn't specify she has to be a temple prostitute. I just had a look at the Wikipedia article on prostitution in ancient Greece. According to that, the Greeks had prostitutes that weren't associated with the temple, including pornai. There is no reason to think that Paul is restricting his teaching only to temple prostitution.

Well, Corinth was known for Aphrodite's temple, which, if I remember correctly from Hercules: The Legendary Journeys (just kidding), was very much connected to spiritual prostitution. In the context then, I don't think he had to specify beyond that. The text today should mean the same thing it meant to the Corinthians long ago (a text can never mean what it could never have meant). If Paul mentions prostitution to the Corinthians, it would have been painfully clear what he meant; even so, prostitution isn't on trial here.

Nothing in this passage indicates that 'pornia' means only sleeping with prostitutes. The woman who loses his virginity and allows herself to be married off as if she were a virgin had played the harlot in her father's house.

That was a separate sin, but you're right. If she lied about it, and the parents found out, she had to prove her virginity or face death. That's also why when and if she did lose her virginity before marriage, her father had to be paid for her.

In these verses fornication is connected with 'touching' a woman, not just a prostitute.

Clearly a euphimism.

That doesn't make much sense in context. Paul goes on to contrast celibacy to marriage. If married men still went to prostitutes, how would each man having his own wife be an argument against going to prostitutes?

Because the context is supplied beforehand, not after (chapter 6, not 7). He was speaking out against the idea supplied by the Corinthians, that celibacy was somehow a good thing for everyone. He is still discussing sexual sins, but a different type. There are other examples in the NT where people had the idea that abstinence was somehow better or more pure, or more spiritual (connected to gnosticism?).

[QUOTELinkH]Paul says that he that commits fornication sins against his own body. It is the individuals body he talks about here.[/QUOTE]

That's a very good point. "His own" is definitely emphatic (his very own body). With the verses before this though, talking about Christ's body, etc, it still seems to me Paul means the church/Christ's body. But even if he doesn't, so what? A man who commits immorality sins against his own body. This doesn't change what immorality was or wasn't.

The issue in 7 onward is definitely unmarried people. I don't contest that. But I don't see where anything before chapter 7 deals with unmarried.

I Corinthians chapter 5 absolutely disproves the idea that 'fornication' is limited only to the concept of temple prostitution or prostitution in general. A man was fornicating in a way that did not occur among the pagans, because he had his father's wife, not his father's prostitute.

Yes, I know it had a very wide array of meanings.

 

[dallasapple]

I think God looks out for our best interest..and I LIKE the idea of pre-marital sex not beign "forbidden" because well heck Im guilty of it..and it woud be NICE if you got one free pass..or you coudl have a little sex with even your eventual spouse rther than havign to pour ice water over your heads..

The problem in my mind isnt "pre-marital sex" its monogomy or "pair bonding"...because if sex outside of marriage is A O.K then having sex with MANY MANY MANY MANY people would be O.K and I dont think thats good for the soul or the body..(the physical body)..So Im not saying its "O.K " to have sex befoe you are married..I think the goal is not to have limitless ...unlimited ...sexual partners..it woudl just be an orgie..we cant just run aroudn havign sex with anyone and everyone its NOT good for you ..so theri needs to be "rules' and ONE for ONE is the only way to handle that..

Dallas

 

[Kol]

Don't know if anyone is familiar with Frederick Buechner (wiki him), but I'd like to highlight some of what he said here about sex, as I think it applies:

Sex is not sin...contrary to Hugh Hefner, it's not salvation either...it can be used either to blow up bridges or heal hearts.

At its roots, the hunger for food is the hunger for survival. At its roots, the hunger to know a person sexually is the hunger to know and be known by that person humanly. Food without nourishment doesn't fill the bill for long, and neither does sex without humanness.

...one appealing view is that anything goes as long as nobody gets hurt. The trouble is that human beings are so hopelessly psychosomatic in composition that whatever happens to the (body) happens also to the (mind), and vice versa.

...who is to say who gets hurt, and how? Maybe the injuries are all internal. Maybe the only person who gets hurt is you.

In practice, Jesus was notoriously soft on sexual misbehavior. Some of his best friends were chippies. He saved the woman taken in adultery from stoning. He didn't tell the woman at the well that she ought to marry the man she was living with. Possibly he found their fresh-faced sensualities closer to loving God and man than the thin-lipped pieties of the Pharisees. Certainly he shared the Old Testament view that the body in all its manifestations was basically good because a good God made it.

When the force of a person's sexuality is centrifugal, pushing farther and farther away as psyches the very ones being embraced as somas, this sexuality is of the Devil. When it is centripetal, it is of God.
​

 

[dallasapple]

He didn't tell the woman at the well that she ought to marry the man she was living with. Possibly he found their fresh-faced sensualities closer to loving God and man than the thin-lipped pieties of the Pharisees. Certainly he shared the Old Testament view that the body in all its manifestations was basically good because a good God made it

Its just really hard sometimes to say ALL premarital sex is "evil" ..or ALL sex outside of marriage is evil or "not of God"..

Also there can certainly be EVIL intentions or "not of God" sexual treatment being done inside of marraige..that isnt "anything goes" either ...becasue we are still PEOPLE with minds..not two bodies getting our "sex need" met..and its ALL good just because the relationship status is "man and wife"..

Im sure there is some stuff going on between married people and their sexual treamtment of each other that woud make the 'fresh faced " unmaried lovers mutually expression sexual LOVE seem like absolute angels..In fact I have no doubt..I have a difficult time calling it any kind of real "evil" ..on the latter..Not so in the case of some of the marrieds..

Dallas

 

[LinkH]

We don't know that Jesus didn't tell the woman at the well to change her lifestyle. He did teach for some time after what was recorded.

We also know that Jesus, early on in the conversation, pointed out the woman's sexual sin, something He knew about by supernatural means.

 

[Kol]

We don't know that Jesus didn't tell the woman at the well to change her lifestyle.

Argument from silence?

I'm so sorry I've derailed your thread. I don't know where you would find the stats on your Mark Gungor video. I think he has a terrific point when he says that men are good at relationships and women aren't (men can organize, women can't), and that the idea of a "soul mate" is ridiculous. The only thing I found in reference to a claim of such "benefits" was his own claim that breaking up after a sexual relationship makes it easier to break up afterwards:

That’s what people do with their hearts. They’re patching and ripping and patching and ripping until they finally get married...and they can’t understand why it’s hard.

People ask, "Why are we failing?" Well, why do you think we’re failing? It’s because we’re doing the wrong stuff. We’re delaying marriage, doing all this stupid sexual experimentation, doing all this dating and connecting and unconnecting. It’s a disaster!

​

Which directly contradicts everything we've learned about human sexuality in the last 2 or 300 years (that sexuality is a developmental stage). Your man Gungor seems to be promoting the idea that dating is bad as well.

It's also interesting to note he isn't a psychologist, but a pastor and "motivational speaker."

 

[citizenthom]

Which directly contradicts everything we've learned about human sexuality in the last 2 or 300 years (that sexuality is a developmental stage)

You're going to have to be way more specific than that and cite some sources. It sounds like you are arguing that sexuality is a phase or that sexual development has a "stopping point."

It's also interesting to note he isn't a psychologist, but a pastor and "motivational speaker."

Pastors often have more practical counseling experience than psychologists, and are often just as on top of developments in the field.