The Bible silent on pre-marital sex?

Status
Not open for further replies.

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟81,010.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
you don't understand how a couple could claim to be "married in gods eyes" as an excuse to have sex without truly being ready to commit?

Oh, I've no doubt it happens - I just doubt it happens enough for you to justify your statement, "I could totally see a couple claiming to be committed to each other("married in the eyes of god") simply because of lust for sex."

Apart from anything else, I'd love to know what you mean by "lust for sex".

David.
 
Upvote 0

Zebra1552

Urban Nomad. Literally.
Nov 2, 2007
14,460
819
Freezing, America
✟26,728.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Legal marriage is an expectation placed on us by society, having a whtie wedding with lots of people and lots of food. Its a worldy tradition.
Then explain to me how non Christians have small weddings with not much food and only a handful of people and have it perfectly acceptable by society's standards.

Marriage in the eyes of God is two peopel who loev ea ch other coming to gether as one. It actually states that.
Where? And by the way, if what you're saying is true, then how come even non Christians view premarital sex with some disdain? How come we have such terms like 'illegitimate child'? How come the other word with that meaning is an insult? Even from a secular pov it's not a good idea because of the breakup rate.
 
Upvote 0

&Abel

Well-Known Member
Aug 16, 2008
7,291
416
42
✟12,921.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Oh, I've no doubt it happens - I just doubt it happens enough for you to justify your statement, "I could totally see a couple claiming to be committed to each other("married in the eyes of god") simply because of lust for sex."

Apart from anything else, I'd love to know what you mean by "lust for sex".

David.

???

I don't see the difference in my first and second statement

and I also don't believe you don't understand what lust for sex is
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟81,010.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
???

I don't see the difference in my first and second statement

The first statement you made kind of suggests that such things happen often enough for you to be unsurprised by such an eventuality.

and I also don't believe you don't understand what lust for sex is

I don't, no. It's certainly not something I experience.

David.
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟94,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Homie

Gods servant
Jul 8, 2002
642
1
39
Visit site
✟8,378.00
Faith
Christian
This is from a different forum on the same discussion (opened by me on that forum as well). Read and comment.

Pastor Roger said:
Hello Homie,

Here's a quote of scripture from one of your own previous posts on this forum.


"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."


This verse, 1Co 7:2, couldn't be clearer and yes there are many other such verses. Yes, some translations use the word immorality or sexual immorality in place of fornication but it is still quite clear in what it means. Those that attempt to blur the meaning are those that simply want to give validation to their own actions. It is no different than those that claim homosexuality is not taught as sin in the Bible.

As Brother Tom said ... "this isn't an open issue with any questions." It is quite clearly taught against in the Bible if one just opens their eyes.

Yes, this verse does imply that sex before marriage is wrong. Jesus also says that even looking upon a woman lustfully is sin, He raises the bar. But why the impliedness of this particular sin, whereas all the other sexual sins (and others) are spelled out as wrong, not just by implication but specifically listed as sins. Nowhere in these lists (whether in the NT or OT) is pre-marital sex listed, but all the others are; being sex with animals, sex with same sex, sex with family members, and most importantly (and in the 10 commandments) adultery.
My theory: God does not consider pre-marital sex optimal, like He doesn't consider multiple wives and concubines optimal, or slavery, or divorce. But He allowed it in the OT period, He does not declare it as a sin. One of these were repealed in the NT; divorce, now specifically listed as sinful unless because of adultery. But pre-marital sex, multiple wives and slavery is still not specifically listed as sinful, although all of them are alluded to as less than optimal.

But you guys are wrong to assume that fornication means sex before marriage. It means temple prostitution, something rampant among the Greeks of the day, which is why it is warned against so many times in the epistles, because a lot of the new churches were in Greece and the Greek speaking world. The Greeks also engaged in homosexual acts, sex with boys, orgys and bought slaves for sex. I think a lot of the focus on sexual purity in the NT has to do with the rampant sexual liberty in the Greek culture of the time. According to Paul, the very most optimal state would be to abstain from sex and marriage altogether, how optimal are we to be?
 
Upvote 0

elephunky

Previously known as dgirl1986
Nov 28, 2007
5,497
203
Perth, Western Australia
✟14,441.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
of course, but it shouldn't be the focal point of why you want to spend your life with someone

not if you expect it to last

For peopel who just want sex it is, for those who want loe and a partnership it isnt.

people who say they are married in the eyes of god usually arent after sex.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zebra1552

Urban Nomad. Literally.
Nov 2, 2007
14,460
819
Freezing, America
✟26,728.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
For peopel who just want sex it is, for those who want loe and a partnership it isnt.

people who say they are married in the eyes of god usually arent after sex.
You've done a survey, then?
 
Upvote 0

Zebra1552

Urban Nomad. Literally.
Nov 2, 2007
14,460
819
Freezing, America
✟26,728.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I have seen both sides, i dont think its my place to judge, only to express concern if evidence tells me its for the wrong reason.

Marriage, in the eyes of God or legally, is never fool proof.
Go look up the stats for those who have sex before marriage. See if they're likely to stay together.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Homie

Gods servant
Jul 8, 2002
642
1
39
Visit site
✟8,378.00
Faith
Christian
Enough of this moshy love this and that debate. It is pointless and easy, I'll solve it for you guys right now.

dGirl is correct in that nowhere in the Bible does it require us to be "married" in the modern Western sense of signing a legal document, have a ceremony by an ordained minister and have food and a dance. The Bible never really defines marriages or specifies what it is, and certainly doesn't set requirements for what is true "marriage".

That being said, when you are married you have made a commitment to stay together for life and be faithful to one another. That's it! So if you have sex after making this commitment, you are not having pre-marital sex in the eyes of God, only in the eyes of the courts and modern society. However, then you can't go ahead and leave your spouse when you feel like it and hook up with someone else, because that would be divorce, or adultery if not declared to your partner that you are leaving them.

Conclusion: Yes you can get married and have sex and have it Biblically lawful without having a modern wedding. But you are then bound to that person for life, and the same restrictions of divorce and adultery apply.
There you go! Now that wasn't so hard was it?

Now lets focus on a much more interesting topic of what The Bible really says about sex, pre-marital sex, and the context of these writings (in particular NT writings), going off of this post below
 
Upvote 0

Homie

Gods servant
Jul 8, 2002
642
1
39
Visit site
✟8,378.00
Faith
Christian
This is from a different forum on the same discussion (opened by me on that forum as well). Read and comment.

Pastor Roger said:
Hello Homie,

Here's a quote of scripture from one of your own previous posts on this forum.


"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."


This verse, 1Co 7:2, couldn't be clearer and yes there are many other such verses. Yes, some translations use the word immorality or sexual immorality in place of fornication but it is still quite clear in what it means. Those that attempt to blur the meaning are those that simply want to give validation to their own actions. It is no different than those that claim homosexuality is not taught as sin in the Bible.

As Brother Tom said ... "this isn't an open issue with any questions." It is quite clearly taught against in the Bible if one just opens their eyes.

Yes, this verse does imply that sex before marriage is wrong. Jesus also says that even looking upon a woman lustfully is sin, He raises the bar. But why the impliedness of this particular sin, whereas all the other sexual sins (and others) are spelled out as wrong, not just by implication but specifically listed as sins. Nowhere in these lists (whether in the NT or OT) is pre-marital sex listed, but all the others are; being sex with animals, sex with same sex, sex with family members, and most importantly (and in the 10 commandments) adultery.
My theory: God does not consider pre-marital sex optimal, like He doesn't consider multiple wives and concubines optimal, or slavery, or divorce. But He allowed it in the OT period, He does not declare it as a sin. One of these were repealed in the NT; divorce, now specifically listed as sinful unless because of adultery. But pre-marital sex, multiple wives and slavery is still not specifically listed as sinful, although all of them are alluded to as less than optimal.

But you guys are wrong to assume that fornication means sex before marriage. It means temple prostitution, something rampant among the Greeks of the day, which is why it is warned against so many times in the epistles, because a lot of the new churches were in Greece and the Greek speaking world. The Greeks also engaged in homosexual acts, sex with boys, orgys and bought slaves for sex. I think a lot of the focus on sexual purity in the NT has to do with the rampant sexual liberty in the Greek culture of the time. According to Paul, the very most optimal state would be to abstain from sex and marriage altogether, how optimal are we to be?
 
Upvote 0

chingchang

Newbie
Jul 17, 2008
2,038
101
New Braunfels, Texas
✟10,259.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yes, this verse does imply that sex before marriage is wrong. Jesus also says that even looking upon a woman lustfully is sin, He raises the bar.

No it doesn't. What was going on in Cornith? Concerning Matt 5:28...we must read Matt 5:27 first...

27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'

Jesus was talking about married women. A man couldn't commit adultery by having sex with a non married woman. So...he was basically saying "don't even look at a married woman with sexual thoughts". Raising the bar? Yes...but this was a property-rights issue. If someone looks at someone else's property and longs for it (lusts)...that is equivalent to coveting (sin)...which always precedes adultery (sin). Regardless...this has nothing to do with premarital sex. It is not a sin to look at a woman lustfully if she doesn't belong to anyone else. If it is a sin...then I sinned before I got married when I lusted for my soon-to-be wife. That doesn't even pass the reason-test. God put a strong sexual desire in men...then he tells us not to look at women lustfully? I don't think so. There is something else to be gained from that teaching...other than the literal out-of-context reading.

But why the impliedness of this particular sin, whereas all the other sexual sins (and others) are spelled out as wrong, not just by implication but specifically listed as sins. Nowhere in these lists (whether in the NT or OT) is pre-marital sex listed, but all the others are; being sex with animals, sex with same sex, sex with family members, and most importantly (and in the 10 commandments) adultery.

Correct...and there is a reason for this.

My theory: God does not consider pre-marital sex optimal, like He doesn't consider multiple wives and concubines optimal, or slavery, or divorce. But He allowed it in the OT period, He does not declare it as a sin. One of these were repealed in the NT; divorce, now specifically listed as sinful unless because of adultery. But pre-marital sex, multiple wives and slavery is still not specifically listed as sinful, although all of them are alluded to as less than optimal.

Nice theory...but you're speaking for God. A theory isn't necessary if you go based on the evidence in the Bible. To be sure...

1 Corinthians 14:33 (KJV):
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Based on the evidence, I conclude that God doesn't care about premarital sex. If it harms someone...then he cares. If it doesn't...then he probably delights in his creation. As far as polygamy goes...he gave David his wives and told David he would have given him even more if only David had not commited adultery by taking Bathsheba (married woman) and then having her husband killed. Those were the sins that caused David's downfall. Otherwise...he would have gone on in the blessings of God with many wives, concubines and slaves. A large majority of the "heros of the faith" were polygamists. So what?

But you guys are wrong to assume that fornication means sex before marriage. It means temple prostitution, something rampant among the Greeks of the day, which is why it is warned against so many times in the epistles, because a lot of the new churches were in Greece and the Greek speaking world. The Greeks also engaged in homosexual acts, sex with boys, orgys and bought slaves for sex. I think a lot of the focus on sexual purity in the NT has to do with the rampant sexual liberty in the Greek culture of the time. According to Paul, the very most optimal state would be to abstain from sex and marriage altogether, how optimal are we to be?

You're right-on here. Paul...however...thought that Jesus was coming back in his lifetime which contributed to his views on marriage/sex. If we really believed that Jesus was going to return soon (any second)...we probably wouldn't bother with marriage...right?

Free Hugs,
CC
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

daydreamergurl15

Daughter of the King
Dec 11, 2003
3,639
423
✟15,656.00
Faith
Christian
Enough of this moshy love this and that debate. It is pointless and easy, I'll solve it for you guys right now.

dGirl is correct in that nowhere in the Bible does it require us to be "married" in the modern Western sense of signing a legal document, have a ceremony by an ordained minister and have food and a dance. The Bible never really defines marriages or specifies what it is, and certainly doesn't set requirements for what is true "marriage".

Seriously? All the examples that we are given that people are betrothed, have sex and then considered married is not an example that given to us in the bible of what marriage is? The talk about giving a certificate of divorce (Deut. 24; Matthew 19) is not an idea of what ending a marriage is or shown that it needed to be on record? The idea that Apostle Paul tells that a man should have his own wife an a woman should have her own husband (1 Corinthians 7) is that not a requirement for what marriage contains? And the idea given to us that a marriage is in the likeness of Christ dying for His church and a husband should love his wife and a wife should submit to her husband (Ephesians 5) is that not part of a definition?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.