Does having sex make you married under God?

[papakapp]

Grr... double post

 

[papakapp]

Tautological is like when you say the same thing two different ways but the second way you say it is useless. For examle, if you got pulled over and told the cop you were speeding because you were late for curfew. But then when you got home you told your parents you were late for curfew because you got pulled over. All you would have done is make excuses that contradict each other.
If having sex made a person married in God's eyes then the word fornication would mean nothing. We understand fornication to mean sex before marriage. But if sex equals marriage then the word fornication means nothing.

 

[beforHim]

that may end premarital sex but it would cause a heck of a whole lot of adultery. i personally see you as married to the person you sleep with. i think you should stay together with or without the sheet of paper and i think youre stuck together short of adultery.

How does sleeping together equal marriage? We all agree that having "the paperwork", the ceremony, etc. are not necessaries- but are you really married to any person you sleep with? Isn't there more to being "one" with another person than just going through the act of sex? When Paul said that in Phillipians (I think it's Phillipians), surely you don't suppose he meant "one" as in married, do you? Prostitutes, I guess, are married all the time and have TONS of husbands?

 

[beforHim]

TauIf having sex made a person married in God's eyes then the word fornication would mean nothing. We understand fornication to mean sex before marriage. But if sex equals marriage then the word fornication means nothing.

Yes.

 

[Cuddles333]

[/color]Yes it is. It's used frequently by Paul. It's already been noted. Fornication/sexual immorality is the same thing.


Otherwise, some of the Patriarchs would have been guilty of such! I think the emptiness that follows having sex with someone with no commitment on the part of both, is punishment enough when it comes to the unmarried.

The patriarchs woulds have been guilty of what, exactly?

Why fornication of course.


I do not believe that God would put something so very strong inside people as the sex drive, and then penalize them for not being strong enough at all times to not let it overcome them. I do not think that this drive should be underestimated because all we have to do to be reminded is to remember the pictures of the poor women in some of the African countries holding their starving infants that are not much more than living skeletons. Places where starvation is rampant but the sex drive is not diminished by it. So, I cannot see God condemning the unmarried for failing to be married when they fall to these very strong urges.

The Old Testament is pretty clear and also shows it's double-standard, when came to men and women. One example is found in Genesis 38 where Judah became a single man after the death of his wife. Supposedly he went away to a small village with a couple of friends, maybe to get away from home for while, understandable. Anyway, the woman who he made wait for his youngest some to grow into manhood for marriage, got tired of waiting to start bearing children. So she finds where he took off to and hatched a scheme. She must have known something about him, maybe all older men are like this, not sure. She goes up to where he is and is dressed up as a prostitute. He bites (so to speak). He buys her for a baby goat. She needed some personal items of his to later show him so she asks for a pledge of some of his personal possessions. The deal was then done. Later on, she is found to be pregnant and Judah hits the roof and orders her to be burned for playing like those pagan temple harlots. She then shows his possessions and he realizes that he had been duped. Not by being nailed for laying up with a harlot, but for producing a child with a woman in the family. He said, "She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah [his 3rd eldest son] my son."

Maybe we are making laws where there are none. Marriage should not exist just to cater to the sex drive. I do not wish to offend anyone but this is just my take on the thing.

 

[Zebra1552]

Why fornication of course.

Cut the condescension. If it was so obvious, I wouldn't have asked.

I do not believe that God would put something so very strong inside people as the sex drive, and then penalize them for not being strong enough at all times to not let it overcome them. I do not think that this drive should be underestimated because all we have to do to be reminded is to remember the pictures of the poor women in some of the African countries holding their starving infants that are not much more than living skeletons. Places where starvation is rampant but the sex drive is not diminished by it. So, I cannot see God condemning the unmarried for failing to be married when they fall to these very strong urges.

That doesn't answer the question.

The Old Testament is pretty clear and also shows it's double-standard, when came to men and women. One example is found in Genesis 38 where Judah became a single man after the death of his wife. Supposedly he went away to a small village with a couple of friends, maybe to get away from home for while, understandable. Anyway, the woman who he made wait for his youngest some to grow into manhood for marriage, got tired of waiting to start bearing children. So she finds where he took off to and hatched a scheme. She must have known something about him, maybe all older men are like this, not sure. She goes up to where he is and is dressed up as a prostitute. He bites (so to speak). He buys her for a baby goat. She needed some personal items of his to later show him so she asks for a pledge of some of his personal possessions. The deal was then done. Later on, she is found to be pregnant and Judah hits the roof and orders her to be burned for playing like those pagan temple harlots. She then shows his possessions and he realizes that he had been duped. Not by being nailed for laying up with a harlot, but for producing a child with a woman in the family. He said, "She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah [his 3rd eldest son] my son."

Maybe we are making laws where there are none. Marriage should not exist just to cater to the sex drive. I do not wish to offend anyone but this is just my take on the thing.

That's one example. You used the word 'patriarchs'. Plural. You also never gave an example of a double standard in the OT.

 

[Tim Myers]

What actually makes anyone "married under God"??.......

 

[Jase]

What actually makes anyone "married under God"??.......

Depends on who you ask. The notion of marriage and religion has been a rocky one throughout history. It didn't have much religious significance until about 500 years ago (200 years ago in England). And some people, like Martin Luther, opposed marriage and religion intermixing it. He called it a "worldly thing".

 

[Alive_Again]

Jesus said to the woman at the well that the one she was with now was not her husband. If she was living with him, it stands to reason that they would be having sex.

The half tribes of Israel were formed from the physical union of servants. They were not married.

Harlots are not married to their "Johns".

Sex outside of marriage is adultery and sexual expression without being married is called fornication. You can join yourself to another and become one flesh, but not be married.

In Jewish culture, the marriage was not consummated until sex. That is why we know that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born. It would not have been a legal marriage.

It is what God joins together that is really a marriage and it is a conscious decision by both parties.

 

[Jazer]

In Jewish culture, the marriage was not consummated until sex. That is why we know that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born. It would not have been a legal marriage.

Mary did not want a legal marriage because she had determined to remain a virgin before God. The solution was to set her up with Joseph who was a widower and had already raised his children for the most part. You should read the book, it is all a very interesting story.

 

[Tim Myers]

"Mary did not want a legal marriage because she had determined to remain a virgin before God. The solution was to set her up with Joseph who was a widower and had already raised his children for the most part. You should read the book, it is all a very interesting story."

And imaginative........

 

[Cuddles333]

Why fornication of course.
​

Cut the condescension. If it was so obvious, I wouldn't have asked.





Isn't it strange how we Christians are so guarded against being misled by others who are not of the same denomination as us or branch of liberal, conservative, or moderate? Just what can we say about Judah? What can we say about Abraham's two daughters who had sex with him when he was drunk? Were not these people guilty of fornication? Is it said by some that the term fornication didn't exist that far back, but is only an early church tenet.

I do not buy that argument. I believe that that the 3rd or 4th century centralized church may invented that term. Maybe to strengthen the power of the church via the Church Marriage doctrine. I think we can know that the term fornication is suspicious because we do not even know what it is really. We have only been taught to think that we have.

For instance, is it fornication for a man to constantly stare into the window of his neighbor at the silhoutette of a woman taking her nightly shower? Is it fornication for a man to view the Swimsuit edition of Sports Illustraded? Is it fornication for a woman to wear a bikini at the public swimming pool? Is it fornication for a woman to wear pants that expose her tramp stamp tattoo?

We just do not know what exactly this term means. It seems to change with the times. What would have been considered fornication 50 or 100 years ago, is not considered fornication today. It is very subjective. Maybe not even truth.

I hope I do not offend anyone. I hope we treat each other with kindness. BTW I was not trying to be meam when I said what I said about the Patriarchs committing fornication. I thought that you didn't understand what I was saying about them.

 

[Faith.Man]

If you have sex out of marriage, does that make you married to that someone under God?

Someone brought this up in one of my threads and i'm curious to know everyones opinion. To me, if it were true then there would be no such thing as pre material sex.

No. It's a sin called fornication. It might also be a sin called adultery if the one a person is sinning with is married to another. If a person is having relations with someone of the same sex, or within the same family, that is also a sin. Both Old and New Testaments are consistent in this teaching.

 

[Jase]

No. It's a sin called fornication. It might also be a sin called adultery if the one a person is sinning with is married to another. If a person is having relations with someone of the same sex, or within the same family, that is also a sin. Both Old and New Testaments are consistent in this teaching.

As evident by the thousands of discussions on the matter, that is highly debatable. You may think they are consistent, but many disagree with you. It always bothers me when people make point of fact statements, while ignoring the evidence against their position.

 

[Faith.Man]

As evident by the thousands of discussions on the matter, that is highly debatable. You may think they are consistent, but many disagree with you. It always bothers me when people make point of fact statements, while ignoring the evidence against their position.

Yes, I do realize there are differing opinions regarding the position as I stated it. I didn't mean to bother you, I just wanted to answer the question from a biblical standpoint. I think that's what the OP was looking for.

 

[Zebra1552]

Why fornication of course.
​

Cut the condescension. If it was so obvious, I wouldn't have asked.





Isn't it strange how we Christians are so guarded against being misled by others who are not of the same denomination as us or branch of liberal, conservative, or moderate?

Isn't it strange when people refuse to discuss things with you because you do the direct opposite of what they asked right after they asked it?

I hope I do not offend anyone. I hope we treat each other with kindness. BTW I was not trying to be meam when I said what I said about the Patriarchs committing fornication. I thought that you didn't understand what I was saying about them.

This conversation is now over. Congratulations for completely ignoring my request for civility.

 

[ghendricks63]

Yes, I do realize there are differing opinions regarding the position as I stated it. I didn't mean to bother you, I just wanted to answer the question from a biblical standpoint. I think that's what the OP was looking for.

LOL - Your last statement validated the point Jase was making.

Human sexuality is one of the areas LEAST understood by a large percentage of Christians IMO. You stating that you were answering from a "biblical" standpoint is completely ignoring the controversy. What would be more accurate is to say that this represents what you have been taught to believe the bible says.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

It seems that in the cases of Old Testament fornication (David and Bathsheba. Tamar and Levi. Rahab and ________. Abraham and Hagar. Lot and his daughters *hurk*. Samson and Delilah. Hosea and his wife.) the women and men who slept together weren't considered married. Stands to reason we shouldn't either.

And no one is condemning anyone. The sex drive is a powerful biological force to be reckoned with. So a 16 year old who ends up having sex outside of marriage is in the same boat David was in: In need of a savior who loves them and longs for reconciliation with them. That's all. Like all of us. No condemning...bad christians...Bad

 

[chingchang]

If you have sex out of marriage, does that make you married to that someone under God?

Someone brought this up in one of my threads and i'm curious to know everyones opinion. To me, if it were true then there would be no such thing as pre material sex.

I hope not...that means a have a large number of wives! The answer to your question is...of course not. Think about the covenant Yahweh made with Israel. Both entered the covenant relationship voluntarily and with conditions. Both parties were conscious of what type of relationship they were entering...and bound by. One can have sex outside of this type of relationship and not be married...it happens all the time.

CC

 

[Faith.Man]

LOL - Your last statement validated the point Jase was making.

Human sexuality is one of the areas LEAST understood by a large percentage of Christians IMO. You stating that you were answering from a "biblical" standpoint is completely ignoring the controversy. What would be more accurate is to say that this represents what you have been taught to believe the bible says.

Either you believe the bible and take what it says regarding sin as truth or you don't. It makes no difference to me.