The Bible silent on pre-marital sex?

[David Brider]

Regardless if it is by government, marriage is a covenant. It is not to be taken lightly.

I agree entirely. However, I'd point you to the observation I made early in this thread - that Scripturally there's no notion of a "marriage service" in the way in which we understand it today in western society; and that being the case, is there Scripturally a need for a marriage service (in a church building, performed by an ordained minister) for two people to be recognised as married by God? Are they not capable of making such a covenant for themselves in front of God?

David.

 

[elephunky]

Because Im at work, I can post replies to topics between jobs but Im not gonna spend 20 minutes looking for a verse.

 

[sunlover1]

What sins do you imagine "they" are trying to justify?

Maybe sleeping around?
Nothing new under the sun is there?
we love to justify our sin while pointing out the other guys'.

 

[sunlover1]

its one of those ones folks make up like 'God helps those who help themselves'....complete hogwash...

Evidently so.

 

[David Brider]

Maybe sleeping around?
Nothing new under the sun is there?
we love to justify our sin while pointing out the other guys'.

Given dGirl1986's post where she says "I have met couples who refuse to conform to expectations of society, and have been together for years and years," I doubt that sleeping around really comes into this.

Besides, let's be realistic - getting married doesn't stop people sleeping around. Sadly.

David.

 

[sunlover1]

Given dGirl1986's post where she says "I have met couples who refuse to conform to expectations of society, and have been together for years and years," I doubt that sleeping around really comes into this.

Being a non conformist myself I can relate to that part of it.
But she has a right to at least be told of God's truth.
His truth doesnt include shacking up. That's a lie from the pit,
designed to harm (destroy) His sheep.

Besides, let's be realistic - getting married doesn't stop people sleeping around. Sadly.

Beside the point though.

 

[chingchang]

1. Is the Bible silent on pre-marital sex? If not, show it.

Yes.

2. If so, does God not condemn it?

No. But I think it is important to understand sexuality at that time. A couple of follow-up thoughts/questions...

1. What age were kids getting married at and how does that play into the differences in our cultures with regard to the questions above?

2. If premarital sex is a sin...I believe that God would want to make that clear to us so that we can avoid it...especially given our highly sexual nature. We could expect scripture to appear in the 10 commandments (making them 11?)...or perhaps in Leviticus 18. Alas...there is none that says premarital sex is a sin.

3. We are under a new convenant and the law is love (of God and neighbor). James calls it the "royal law". I don't think we can go wrong if love is at the center of our decision-making (nobody is harmed). For example...if a couple that is engaged has sex before they get married...have they sinned? I would say with certainty...no. What if they have sex before they get engaged?

The Bible mentions fornication often, which in many translations is translated sexual immorality. But what is sexual immorality? It is either left up to the reader to figure out, or we can assume that it is the specific sexual acts mentioned in the Bible as sinful. Why the silence on the issue?

You...sir...are on the right trail. We must look to the Bible to discern sexual immorality. God was very specific in the OT as to which sexual activities we sould not engage in. The sexual acts that God did not legislate against are not sinful. Galatians 5:1 and Romans 14 come to mind.

I'd like only people who are knowledgeable about The Bible to answer, this is to be a serious discussion.

I think everyone here...even the most conservative fundamentalists...would agree that the Church has not done a good job teaching on this extremely important issue. I think everyone here would agree that the Catholic Church...for centuries...taught a repressive sexuality even when it came to the marriage bed. At one point in time...the Catholic Church permitted married couples to have sex only for procreation and only in the missionary position. The Church has come a long way since then...but we've carried some of that puritanical baggage with us. It is hard for folks to break-free from this legalistic mindset...especially when most are schooled from an early age to basically think sex is evil and to be avoided at all costs (except in marriage). Then...the Church teaches those same folks that masturabation is evil. So guess what? We've got a bunch of walking time-bombs with no sexual outlet. A recipe for disaster if I've ever seen one. It is time for a fresh look at these issues with an emphasis on love and freedom...IMHO.

Free Hugs,
CC

 

[elephunky]

And marriage, sadly, doesnt stop people from sleeping around either.

 

[&Abel]

legal marriage is a show of commitment

if you aren't prepared for a commitment legally you probably aren't ready to dedicate your life to someone either

you don't have to get married in white or even in a church

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

should this commitment be able to made on a first date while ripping each others clothes off?

no of course not....if you can't take the legal steps you aren't ready to commit

 

[David Brider]

Being a non conformist myself I can relate to that part of it.
But she has a right to at least be told of God's truth.
His truth doesnt include shacking up.

But as I pointed out - at the time the Bible was written, two people moving into the same house together with the intention to live as a married couple was marriage, to all intents and purposes. "Shacking up" is, IMO, just dismissing it rather crudely.

David.

 

[David Brider]

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.

Could you? Why? Given that it's perfectly possible for a couple to a.) have sex without getting married, b.) have sex without living together, c.) get married without having sex, and d.) live together without having sex, I don't really see any correlation; I'm curious as to why you do. I'm even more curious as to what, exactly, "lust for sex" is?

David.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

But as I pointed out - at the time the Bible was written, two people moving into the same house together with the intention to live as a married couple was marriage, to all intents and purposes. "Shacking up" is, IMO, just dismissing it rather crudely.

David.

As I recall, we have no example of "two people moving into the same house together with the intention to live as a married couple" in scriptures. I would use the Semaritan woman as an example as living together does not mean you are married but scripture doesn't actually say they live together I guess you can infer it because women didn't live by themselves during those days (John 4:16-18). But scripture does say that "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

 

[David Brider]

As I recall, we have no example of "two people moving into the same house together with the intention to live as a married couple" in scriptures.

Not explicitly, but that apparently was the cultural norm at the time. Certainly there is no depiction in Scripture of a marriage service in the sense that we'd understand it today - the closest we come in the Bible is the wedding feast at Cana, but that seems to be a celebration of a marriage, rather than a service to formalise a marriage.

David.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Not explicitly, but that apparently was the cultural norm at the time. Certainly there is no depiction in Scripture of a marriage service in the sense that we'd understand it today - the closest we come in the Bible is the wedding feast at Cana, but that seems to be a celebration of a marriage, rather than a service to formalise a marriage.

David.

Isaac and Rebekah gives us a clue of what God considers marriage. God literally picked out the woman for Isaac and then he takes her into his mother's tent, some say this is a public act...

"And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother's death." (Genesis 24:66-67). In that verse, there were no intentions of getting married, they were married.

 

[elephunky]

People get married for sex as well you know.

 

[David Brider]

"And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother's death." (Genesis 24:66-67). In that verse, there were no intentions of getting married, they were married.

Sure, but neither is there any sign in that passage of any kind of marriage ceremony.

To be honest, I'd say that if a couple today decided to move in to a house together and say they were married, that would be identical in every respect to what we know of the situation between Isaac and Rebekah. Augmenting it with "to be married you must go through a marriage service in officiated by an ordained minister and sign a bit of paper to show that you're legally married" is, IMO, unBiblical.

David.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Sure, but neither is there any sign in that passage of any kind of marriage ceremony.

To be honest, I'd say that if a couple today decided to move in to a house together and say they were married, that would be identical in every respect to what we know of the situation between Isaac and Rebekah. Augmenting it with "to be married you must go through a marriage service in officiated by an ordained minister and sign a bit of paper to show that you're legally married" is, IMO, unBiblical.

David.

I already said I don't believe that a "marriage ceremony" as in the way that we use the term is biblical.

 

[&Abel]

People get married for sex as well you know.

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

 

[&Abel]

Could you? Why? Given that it's perfectly possible for a couple to a.) have sex without getting married, b.) have sex without living together, c.) get married without having sex, and d.) live together without having sex, I don't really see any correlation; I'm curious as to why you do. I'm even more curious as to what, exactly, "lust for sex" is?

David.

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?

 

[Zebra1552]

Yes.

Then you might want to go back and address what has already been posted, seeing as it contradicts that claim.