Sex before marriage?

[Frogsterking]

How can the Bible's stance on sex before marriage be interpreted for our time period? In Biblical times, people got married much younger and marriage was quicker and easier. I read a verse I can't remember right now about how a couple within marriage shouldn't be celibate for long so that they are not tempted away by their desires. Today, for a responsible marriage you'd be getting married much later than you would in a marriage in biblical times. Does the idea of sex before marriage change? Is it okay with one partner in a serious relationship?

[Tina]

How can the Bible's stance on sex before marriage be interpreted for our time period? In Biblical times, people got married much younger and marriage was quicker and easier. I read a verse I can't remember right now about how a couple within marriage shouldn't be celibate for long so that they are not tempted away by their desires. Today, for a responsible marriage you'd be getting married much later than you would in a marriage in biblical times. Does the idea of sex before marriage change? Is it okay with one partner in a serious relationship?

That's a really good question. And a good observation.

[Frogsterking]

Well thank you, Tina.

[Ivellious]

I think you'll get a range of opinions on this. Obviously the very conservative Christian viewpoint would say that the Bible absolutely forbids any sexual experience outside marriage and thus it is sinful and destructive. More liberal Christians (and myself) might say that, as you say, there might be room to throw parts of those verses against sex outside marriage into the "no longer relevant" category.

If you were to strictly stick to the Bible, I think it is fairly clear on this issue though. That is, that any sex outside marriage is forbidden. If nothing else, you might be able to say that you can forget the part about stoning any violators to death, but you are probably stepping outside of Christianity's foundations if you say that sex outside marriage is ok or acceptable.

[Reactionary]

How can the Bible's stance on sex before marriage be interpreted for our time period? In Biblical times, people got married much younger and marriage was quicker and easier. I read a verse I can't remember right now about how a couple within marriage shouldn't be celibate for long so that they are not tempted away by their desires. Today, for a responsible marriage you'd be getting married much later than you would in a marriage in biblical times. Does the idea of sex before marriage change? Is it okay with one partner in a serious relationship?

Good question, one that I've thought about very much. I wrote my observations in an old thread maybe a year ago, and my opinion hasn't changed.

The fact is, as you've noticed yourself, that the society has radically changed since the Biblical times, and these days people usually get married at the age of 25-30, when they finish college and get a job so they can support the family. These times are especially tough when it comes down to being tempted away by desires, since we're practically surrounded by sexuality in basically all aspects of our culture.

But that's not my argument - this is: I believe that, in order to make a lifelong decision such as marriage, one needs to fully get to know his/her partner, and I'm afraid that involves sexuality as well. Getting into marriage with a huge unknown such as sexual compatibility, can be dangerous. What if the two are not compatible? That can happen as well. And sexual frustration can ruin a person, and marriage. So to those who say that premarital sex is destructive, well, abstinence until marriage may not always turn out to be the safest option either.

I certainly don't advocate promiscuity. But if two people are in a serious relationship, and there's a hint that something more could come out of it, my opinion is that it would be safer in the long term that they move their relationship to the highest physical level, to put it that way. I don't see a problem with it, as it would be sex for the sake of expressing love, rather than plain fornication. I get pretty much frustrated when some people in the Church can't or won't see the difference. To put pornography, adultery and promiscuity in the same basket as sex in a serious relationship, would be rather ignorant in my opinion.

[PaulSacramento]

Marriage is a commitment, a commitment under GOD.
It is NOT about BEING married but the comment given between TWO people to become ONE.
It is not about the "legality" of marriage but the ideal of love given freely between two people that have commited to themselves under God.
Sex before marriage is a trickly question because of the context of what marriage is.
If i t is simply the "legal" agreement between two people then we have made something beautiful and fullfilling into something written on paper and sex into something as "part of the agreement" as opposed to an expression of love and commitment between two people.

I believe that sex is love making, which is the highest physical expression of love and intimacy, when two people become ONE and for that there MUST be a declared and wanted commitment to each other and THAT is far more than a piece of paper the tell OTHERS that you are married legally.

Know what I mean?

[Tina]

Marriage is a commitment, a commitment under GOD.
It is NOT about BEING married but the comment given between TWO people to become ONE.
It is not about the "legality" of marriage but the ideal of love given freely between two people that have commited to themselves under God.
Sex before marriage is a trickly question because of the context of what marriage is.
If i t is simply the "legal" agreement between two people then we have made something beautiful and fullfilling into something written on paper and sex into something as "part of the agreement" as opposed to an expression of love and commitment between two people.

I believe that sex is love making, which is the highest physical expression of love and intimacy, when two people become ONE and for that there MUST be a declared and wanted commitment to each other and THAT is far more than a piece of paper the tell OTHERS that you are married legally.

Know what I mean?

So, if I have not had a ceromony or legally binding marriage ( yet ) with my fiance, but we consider eachother married, are we married?

[Ivellious]

I don't think you'll get much resistance these days if you are engaged. I think most Christians these days would essentially consider that being "married" in every way except legally.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I believe that sex is love making, which is the highest physical expression of love and intimacy, when two people become ONE and for that there MUST be a declared and wanted commitment to each other and THAT is far more than a piece of paper the tell OTHERS that you are married legally.

Know what I mean?

Yeah, I know what you mean. There isn't a biblically mandated ceremony called ''Wedding'' but once a couple are intimate, they are married in the eyes of God.

So, if I have not had a ceromony or legally binding marriage ( yet ) with my fiance, but we consider eachother married, are we married?

In the eyes of the State, you are just living together and unwed. God established the governing powers, so if you want to be legally married, get the ceremony over with.

FL

[Ivellious]

FL, I'm curious, do you really believe that God founded the governing states? That doesn't sound right at all, with the exception of the Jewish state of biblical times. I'm not talking about separation of church and state or anything, I'm just confused about what you mean when you say that.

[Jac3510]

FL, I'm curious, do you really believe that God founded the governing states? That doesn't sound right at all, with the exception of the Jewish state of biblical times. I'm not talking about separation of church and state or anything, I'm just confused about what you mean when you say that.

Not to put words in FL's mouth, but I assume from Rom 13. Plus the multitude of OT verses that speak of God sovereignly establishing kings and kingdoms.

[Ivellious]

Well, that's fine and dandy for kingdoms that no longer exist (see: practically speaking every example in the Bible). I'm just saying, to link God as the explicit founder of today's governments doesn't make much sense. I'm just not sure if I'm understanding what is being said exactly.

[Jac3510]

Well, that's fine and dandy for kingdoms that no longer exist (see: practically speaking every example in the Bible). I'm just saying, to link God as the explicit founder of today's governments doesn't make much sense. I'm just not sure if I'm understanding what is being said exactly.

Rom 13 isn't limited to ancient governments. It's a statement on government generally and our response to it.

And why if God established kingdoms back then would he not do it today? What changed?

[neo-x]

And why if God established kingdoms back then would he not do it today? What changed?

I agree with you Jac, though just to play along, I'd say that apart from being a logical deduction, the answer to such a question would be infinitely debatable.

[Ivellious]

I guess I simply don't understand the meaning of "establishing government." Is this implying that God specifically forged the United States and separated them from England? That ancient pagan nations like Greece and Egypt were formed by God? That evil tyrant-run kingdoms are all establishments of God? What about those who have no government?

I just don't see how one can derive God out of human governments. It's a human function that benefits us as a group of people in one place.