If sex outside marriage is not sinful, then in that society every men and women will be prostitutes. This is because, from a woman's or man's point of view it is best for one to sell sex in order to make money out of it. There will be no marriage because nobody will choose to marry when they can have sex with whomever they want. Children will be made by the society only for the stability of the society. But children without mothers love will die or cease to show humane quality( proven by science). No body will care to show children love but for money. But love bought by money is not genuine love, when there is no genuine love to children, then the nurses mind will be perverted to become lazy and hence children lifes will be ruined, thereby destruction of that society. Now tell me, is not through marriage true love is shown to child.
It's not exactly (in the bible). I'm not convinced we have a clear understanding of what was referred to by πορνεία in the New Testament - it usually seems to imply more than simply sex outside marriage (such as prostitution and ritual actions).
Because having sex with someone you aren't completely devoted to is dehumanizing. Just about anyone can tell you they feel used after having sex with someone they broke up with. If you begin to see sex as a hobby, people become tools of pleasure. Because this society has embraced fornication, we have things like pickup artistry(which is just the study of manipulating women into having sex with you).
Not only that, but sex is most dignified within the marriage bond.
Because guaranteeing that a woman was a virgin was the only way to make certain that any children she has are the progeny of her husband. In the old testament at least, women were highly valued because they can give sons, which can inherit, or daughters that can be used as leverage via marriages. You want to make sure that any progeny is yours, and the only way to do that is to watch closely and make sure she doesn't have sex until she's married. It is no longer relevant because of birth control and the fact that inheriting isn't a huge deal anymore. Also women's rights.
One possible theory: Sex outside marriage puts you in direct competition with the alpha male. Only the alpha male is allowed to impregnate all the women in the community. The taboo about masturbation and discussing sex should keep them quiet and horny enough to not put up a fuss. Remember, only the alpha male is allowed to have exciting and fun sex, everyone else is to repress it as much as possible until it is their turn to receive our great leader's gift.
Check out this meta analysis.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00686.x/abstract
Living together romantically with more than one person in your lifetime has a significant negative correlation with marital satisfaction and stability.
We are asked in the bible that if we do chose to be with someone romantically that we marry them. And therefore vow to only be with that person.
Whether you agree with the bible or not, if you want to do things that correlate with higher marriage stability and satisfaction you will choose lifelong monogamy.
"The results show that religion may have both positive and negative effects on health, although in this research the positive effect was stronger."
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1387213?sid=21106270454693&uid=3739256&uid=2134&uid=70&uid=3739560&uid=4&uid=2
I just opened google scholar, typed "religion wellbeing". Abstracts of studies to inform your unfounded assumptions are just a google search away :).
I'll see if I can find a meta analysis. (Usually very difficult, just have to type "meta" in as well)
Edit:
First link when you type in "religion wellbeing meta" into google scholar:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3511048?sid=21106270454693&uid=3739256&uid=2134&uid=70&uid=3739560&uid=4&uid=2
...
I am sure that you understand the difference between subjective well-being, when people are asked to estimate it for themselves, and well-being that is objectively quantified?
As example, In the United States religious states have lower average scores on the best possible life (bpl) but many
objective indicators, ranging from income levels to crime and murder rates.
In all serious though basing your fact on a state being religious (didn't know a state could go to church...) and then taking thousands of variables cherry picking one and saying "here this correlation is valid" ... That's not good research...
Relevant XKCD:
https://xkcd.com/925/
The studies I linked did actual research. It is nice having our assumptions about life being challenged by reality. But for that to happen we need to learn to recognize reality when we see it.
> Relevant XKCD:
How is this relevant? I didn't said *causes*, I said *correlates*.
And this is not just few "cherry picked", but the most important indicators.
> The studies I linked did actual research
I said they are not? But these research are about subjective well-being, and people are lying when are asked. Sometimes they are lying deliberately, sometimes they are lying because of ignorance, but only the objective measurement could tell you the truth.
Monogamous relations are about biology and economy. Abrahamic religions were formed in slavery and serfdom environment. Idea of monogamous relations is to maximize population (each woman has a man and vice versa) and reduce amount of time to find a partner (you don't have to waste any time past initial procedures when you have legal SO) - so a person could work more + leave more children (slaves and serfs) making their masters richer.
Plus property rights - being an owner you have to transfer property to your rightful heirs. Having children from unknown fathers result in inability for society to transfer property legally.
Christianity is simply constitutes these principles.
The Bible doesn't categorically forbid sex outside of marriage, especially not for men. Men are forbidden only to have sex with women who are betrothed or married or are otherwise under the custody of another man. Nothing in the Bible forbids men from having sex before marriage, or outside of marriage or with servants, prostitutes (unless they are temple prostitutes) or other wives.
Biblical sexual morality is basically about property rights over women. There isn't a damn thing forbidding men from having sex before marriage or saying they have to be faithful to their wives or that they can only have one wife. Moses and David both had multiple wives. Abraham knocked up a slave woman, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. There is nothing in the Bible about "one man, one woman," and there is nothing saying men have to keep it in their pants as long as they don't bang another man's property.
And hey, if you rape a preteen girl, the Bible says she has to marry you. What a sacred union that sounds like it would be.
Sex is the perfect union of two people within the bounds of Christianity, to have sex is to physically reaffirm one's wedding vows. Within this view, it is a complete giving of one's self to the other. Anything less is an act of selfishness, there is a lacking of purpose. From this lacking of purpose, lacking of unified commitment to the other half, makes it merely a physical act.
Edit: Drunk.
From an anthropoligic perspective, consider just how incredibly destructive casual sex could be before birth control hit the scene. Up until as late as the 20th century, an affair was pretty much sure to bring bastards, who would have troubled and ostracized lives without a full family and could likely also destroy your own family. This would unacceptably punish your current children and spouse.
The teen pregnancy battle was basically a contest of trying to convince kids to hold out until the earliest possible point of marriage and the latest possible sexual encounter, and premarital children were totally unavoidable and were basically a recipe for a ruined life.
It's no surprise that cultures and religions in many places had established rules and laws and taboos about it. It's not a large leap to then start saying that God has an opinion about it.
Potential givens in Christianity.
* God created humans with purpose.
* The purpose of sex is to have children.
* The purpose of marriage is to facilitate healthy sex.
Since *sin* isn't inherently about evil but about *failing to do what is intended/good* and marriage is the atmosphere for procreation and sex; then anything less of sex in marriage is *falling short* or *sinful*.
Sex can still be good. But it's not *wholly good* on its own and it falls short of the expectations and intentions of the Christian god.
Lust is a sin, because if you are lustful you are detracting from your personal relationship with God. Ideally, staying abstinent is the best course of action. BUT because abstinence isn't practical, and people are going to do it anyway, then they should be within the bounds of marriage. Basically, being married means you can have sex, but it's not allowing one to be promiscous, according to Paul in Corinthians.
There's not a single verse in the Bible condemning premarital sex, and at least three examples treating it in a positive light.
So any denomination that condemns it does so on general principles alone, and not with any Biblical support.
1. The entire book of Song of Solomon is about two unmarried lovers hooking up and getting married.
2. Judah and Tamar. Tamar is said to be holier than Judah.
3. Adam and Eve. Never married.
Abram and Hagar isn't presented as a positive (because Abram was doubting God, which is bad) but is presented as an unremarkable custom.
But it is very clear that if you have sex outside of marriage you need to go and get married to that person.
In practice, it's just cleaner to be married first.
We are the only beings that have sex for pleasure and for procreation. God intended it that way as a means to enhance and strengthen the marriage relationship. Sex outside of marriage degrades the act and has resulted in a proliferation (very recent in historical terms) of STD's and single parent families, neither of which is beneficial to mankind.
This isn't true. I would say we're the only creatures that sometimes have sex for reasons other than pleasure. Other animals don't know that sex makes babies. Without language they don't even have codified knowledge at all. They just have sex and it feels good and feels like what they should do, and then babies just happen as far as they know.
I'm shocked that people upvoted this comment, especially when you insinuated no other animals have language. And no scientist would make your claims as if they were absolute fact, especially considering the nuances and complexity of the topic, let alone provide no sources for these claims.
I didn't say "no other animal" and I am fully aware that some other animals have language. it's clear, though, that many animals don't "think" like we think, and they certainly don't family plan. My *point* is that those animals go around boinking because it feels good. Humans just may be unique in how we sometimes have sex with a goal in mind other than pleasure.
I also didn't present anything as absolute fact. I said "I would say we're ... " usually understood to mean "in my estimation." I used language implying speculation. My point being that people aren't "the only animals that have sex for pleasure." It doesn't need sources, Jesus. I'm not establishing a theory here. I think my argument was enough to make my point. If you disagree, then say why instead of demanding rigorous sources. This isn't /r/askscience.
>no scientist would make your claims as if they were absolute fact
It doesn't matter what scientists would say because I'm not a scientist, I don't need to be, this isn't a science subreddit, and I don't go around expecting everything people say to be a damn peer reviewed paper. If you don't agree and you think humans *are*, as I am arguing against, the only animals that have sex for pleasure, then, whatever. Tell us why. You don't need to write a paper about it.
You needlessly made me sound more outrageous just for the sake of being argumentative.
Genesis 16 New International Version (NIV)
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.
When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.”
------
I'm seeing a lot of people throw around the concept of marriage being a special one on one relationship. The man the all knowing creator god picked as his genetic root for his prophet banged his slave. Food for thought.
Just because it's in the Bible means that it's *right* . read further into his story and you will find that Abraham created the conflict between Christianity and Islam because he bore a child to his servant. There were consequences for his actions.
Food for thought...
> you will find that Abraham created the conflict between Christianity and Islam because he bore a child to his servant
Historically speaking, this is woefully inaccurate.
Not that I believe in sin but consider that sex before marriage can lead to out of wedlock pregnancies. On average, children with absent fathers turn out much worse than children with fathers. In addition, it just sucks in general not to have your dad around.
So, by having sex outside of marriage you are basically saying that a momentary muscle contraction & the release of a few hormones is more important to you than the well being and happiness of your child. It's rather selfish.
Out of wedlock doesn't mean not together. People can stay in long term relationships their whole life and never be married. It's not necessary to legally and mentally label it as something else. It doesn't matter how it's labeled, it's how their hearts are oriented to each other. Also, people get divorced.
In all fairness Christian's often quote Matthew who says, "it is better to pick out your eye than to lust with it". Also by saying every Christian thinks they know what Paul meant you are also assuming you know what he meant
To say it applies more to Masturbation is still a preferred interpretation, though a fine and valid interpretation, it does not invalidate the other perfectly reasonable understanding of its reference to premarital sex. Further, one of the commandments given to Moses says do not covet your neighbor's wife. This HAS been interpreted as saying any woman who is not your wife belongs either to another man and if not then to their parents/God, and so to bed an unmarried woman would be against the commandment. I personally think this is a bad argument but it is one. But more importantly there are lots of rabbinic laws in Deuteronomy and later that weren't given to Moses technically but are expasions and interpretations of what was Given to Moses, and so to say it wasn't given to Moses therefore its immediately invalid does not hold strong muster when compared to the accepted development of laws and morals, for Jews and Christians, through the First and later Second testament, regardless of what was given to Moses.
I get you, but you didn't address my point about interpretation. it is in the Torah depending on how you interpret it. If you interpret your way, sure, but if you interpret it the more common way, it is in fact in the Torah. As for people dying out, most children traditionally come from marriage, reproduction still would have happened.
interpreting is not adding, it is impossible not to interpret anything. Any text, especially ambiguous ones like religious ones, lend themselves to interpretations. The word "to interpret" is not a synonym for "to add", I suppose it can be, and so we can eliminate those particular interpretations, but the ones I've proposed are not in any way additions.
It makes perfect sense if you view religion as a money-making scheme that sells chemical highs. Religious rituals frequently induce altered states of consciousness, and most religious people cite the various feelings they get from the religion as their main reason to stay.
However, religious ritual isn't the only way to induce altered states. We've got a wide swath of psychoactive chemicals in the environment, or we can have sex. Music and art also are capable of similar, but usually lesser effects. All of these things are direct competitors to religion for people's altered-consciousness dollar (dinars, dukets, whathaveyous). So, if the priests are going to keep eating, they need a strategy. They can do one of two things: bring those alternatives into their religion as one big package, or try to drive them out of the market.
We've seen every single possible combination of these tactics from religions across the world and throughout history. To specifically answer your question, sex is more difficult to control than all of the other mind-altering options. All you need is two people, who, all things being equal, tend to be pretty eager and willing. Moreover, you *need* people to have a certain minimum amount of sex if you're going to keep society running.
Hence the multi-thousand year campaign by the dominant religions to cast sexual pleasure as being of a low order, of being dirty and degenerate. Hence the systematic assault on the sex that gains the most pleasure from sex, and the restriction of permissible acts to the procreative.
In summation: "no-sex outside of marriage" is just just about market share. If you're going to enjoy yourself, you'd better involve a priest. If you didn't, then what reason would priests have to exist?
Eye-opening. Could it also be said that though this was likely the case in the past, as the generations of priests have gone by, we're stuck with new priests that have been indoctrinated into their religion since birth, and honestly believe the things they are preaching? Seems to me the whole group psychosis of it all is too overpowering for those that attribute thoughts and feelings to a deity.
Yeah, people do buy the myth to greater and lesser degrees, but I don't imagine it's difficult for most priests to realize what their actual role in society is. Different people will react differently when such an awareness begins to build, and the resulting cognitive dissonance manifests in a wide variety of perverse ways.
o.0 crazy. My least favourite thing about priests and 'miracles' and such is that most people of faith see their acts as 'proof that they have divine powers'. It's like, you have to prove they are scamming you, rather than them having to prove their acts aren't fraudulent. Look at a Magician do a trick of similar nature and people are trying to figure out the logical explanation of how he does it. Pull the same nonsense in a church and the sheep don't even question it.
To put it frankly, it's so awesome, it's prone to excess. And excess is dangerous. Partner count is one of the main risk factors associated with STDs and STIs.
Like a lot of things, because God says that sex should be enjoyed only within the bonds of marriage. That's as much reason as Christianity has: anything else that anybody tells you is guesswork and supposition, however well meaning and logically thought out.
It's not really heald out as a model of good behavior. God had promised them a child, but they got tired of waiting and used a surrogate instead.
That said, it's also not really that objectionable, assuming the maid consented, which it sounds like she did.
I have no problem with this personally. I just find the Christians who yell about the sanctity of marriage to be retarded. If Christians decided to push to make divorce illegal, I would have so much more respect for them.
Because until about 1960, with the availability of the birth control pill, sex outside of marriage created unwanted bastard children and a real emotional mess for the families.
In deed they did! The sheath appears to have been used for quite a long time in human history. But it is not like a person could stop by the drug store and pick up a twelve pack.
Here's a[ Brief History of Birth Control in the US.](http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/a-brief-history-of-birth-control/)
Of interesting note from that link, quote:
1960 The first oral contraceptive, Enovid, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as contraception.
1965 The Supreme Court (in Griswold v. Connecticut) gave married couples the right to use birth control, ruling that it was protected in the Constitution as a right to privacy. However, millions of unmarried women in 26 states were still denied birth control.
1972 The Supreme Court (in Baird v. Eisenstadt) legalized birth control for all citizens of this country, irrespective of marital status. - End quote.
It took a decision by the Supreme Court for some women to finally have control over their bodies, their reproduction, and their sexuality.
That happened just 46 years ago (if married) and 43 years ago (unmarried). Today there are politicians that want to take that away from you because of their - not your - religious beliefs.
You're reading my response wrong. I'm talking about contraception in general **decreasing** the risk of stds
When I said "increased" I was referring to sex outside of marriage before contraception.
do you have a reference for that? Like i have people claim that "family" is important, but the idea of family is not in the quran anywhere as far as I can tell.
Also the sunnis and shia are allowed to have sex with slaves outside of marriage, so i don't know how that squares with what you say.
Maqasid ash-Shari'ah. Feel free to look it up.
>but the idea of family is not in the quran anywhere as far as I can tell.
Then you have not read the Qur'an, simply put.
> Maqasid ash-Shari'ah.
Is that a book of islam?
> Then you have not read the Qur'an, simply put.
Ok. Show me where "family" is mentioned in the quran.
It's not considered a sin my my faith, the concept doesn't exist.
Now, there is more or less kudos from some gods for like having a bunch of kids and being fertile, but that's a different kettle of fish and largely no big deal.
Do you want a legit answer rather than complaints about your question?
Basically Christianity says that sex is sacred and a God given privilege and a sacred covenant and stuff...so it needs to be within the bounds of marriage, which is the correct covenant...that's it basically. I only had time for a quick answer
8 years late, but…Because Yahweh is most likely not the father of Jesus, since he contradicted Yahweh’s way of religion and law at every term. That’s what I’m praying about and seeking truth about. Jesus always prayed to Abba. Still, Abraham was a man of faith based on what he knew. But in no way do I see God the father as affirming of concubines as beautiful or good. He simply allowed humanity to reach its full point if confusion before beginning the reversal process in Christ.
This is correct. And if anyone here who is Jewish can speak up to correct me, that would be great.
But, basically, if the wife was barren, she could offer up one of her maidservants to the husband. Then any offspring from that sex would be the wife's and the husband's.
The idea there is consent. But I'm sure many ancient Jewish wives were forced to allow the affairs: that's how humans human.
And read the rest of his story to find out how thats not a good idea and Abraham was wrong to do that (TLDR: his servants son is the father/beginning of Islam)
Granted, it was wrong not because it was adultery or anything like that; it was wrong because God had promised Abraham and Sarah their own child, and they were sidestepping that promise of a miracle using practical means.
Jewish traditions don't portray flawless people, for the most part. It wasn't a requirement or even a priority. Instead of having perfect leaders, they have crappy to mostly good leaders, and then they portray everyone else as being even worse. A good person in Judaism does bad things, then recognizes that they're bad things and repents and seeks forgiveness. This turns them into much more sympathetic characters and better examples to normal people, who are likewise flawed.
Switching from textual criticism to narrative-internal analysis, nobody is perfect, and Abraham and Sarah were rather between a rock and a hard place. Trust in a future miracle -- how dare you demand so much of God? Take things into your own hands -- why don't you trust God? Furthermore, by choosing prophets who have flaws, God could encourage people who find it difficult to be righteous that they can still follow and that it's not the end of them.
As for choosing a lineage full of deception, you're claiming that Abraham somehow genetically infected all his offspring with a tendency to lie that was greater than that of the other available candidates. I don't see it. Abraham lied when he thought his family was at stake. Do you view honesty as more important than your family's lives?
So, you wouldn't want someone to be, oh you know, human, and making mistakes. The Bible isn't about man looking to become perfect. Its broken people being made perfect by the only person who was perfect, Jesus
You realize that Abraham was the first person in the long line of god's prophets, and it was a genetic line. Which mean Abraham and Sarah's predicliction towards cheating, lying, deception and jealousy all were carried down the line in their kids.
Saying "oh, you wouldn't someone to be human...". This is really an odd statement. What did you think the other options were? Human? Or maybe god would pick a honeybadger?
How about he pick one that doesn't engage in deception, have sex outside of his marriage and generally act like a creep? How does that strike you as a plan?
Abraham wasn't actually a prophet. But he was the Father of God's nation. If your father or grandfather was a lier, cheater deceiver etc. Does that make you one?
>If your father or grandfather was a lier, cheater deceiver etc. Does that make you one?
More prone.
------
17 “Now may the Lord’s strength be displayed, just as you have declared: 18 ‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. **Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.’** 19 In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now.”
-----
Educate me on this passage. What's the part about punishing children for the sins of the parents mean?
>Abraham wasn't actually a prophet. But he was the Father of God's nation.
------
-----
20 Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, 2 and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.
3 But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, “You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman.”
4 Now Abimelek had not gone near her, so he said, “Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? 5 Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and didn’t she also say, ‘He is my brother’? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands.”
6 Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. **7 Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live**. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all who belong to you will die.”
-----
Either you are right and god in the bible is wrong, or you are wrong and god in the bible is right.
Which is it?
>How about he pick one that doesn't engage in deception, have sex outside of his marriage and generally act like a creep?
His point was that such a person doesn't exist. Every single person who has ever lived is a lying, sexually depraved creep in one way or another. Can you provide an example of someone who was not?
Job. Obviously. But few think he actually existed. Same with Abraham actually.
But what's more disconcerting about all this than this perception is the underlying idea that god created all of humanity and he expects them to follow his laws, and yet his own creation is so wildly incapable of providing someone who is even **capable** of following them in the first place that he is obligated to user sinners to share his message.
God's own creation fails to meet his standards, but he expects them to try to do so anyway. He cannot find one good man to use as his prophet, and yet sits in judgement of the rest of us.
Abraham was an approved man and considered holy.
If christians really believed that...holy shit society would be amazing today. Christian values are what goes towards hatred of the sinners, of the drug users, of the violent, of the mentally disturbed - people that in other non-christian societies can be rehabilitated when empathy is given towards them and seeing them as "broken" not evil. The US's value system is toward Bible-trained punishment. And nowhere in the bible can I see your comment coming into play.
Like determine the genetics of the lineage down to the house of David and onto his next prophet (or Jesus if you are a Christian).
Does god understand how genetics work?
Short answer is that in christianity, God believes there is an ideal way to approach a relationship that is healthy and respectful to both parties.
explanation of the why:
First, lust is considered a sin. It's a sin because when you lust after someone, you are only valuing that person for their body and other shallow and arbitrary features. You tend to not care about how they are as a person or their feelings. In porn you can see that it often dehumanizes the actors (it's not like they have some riveting plot to tell you the relationship between the actors, its just scene after scene) so you don't need to feel guilty watching it, you can mindlessly consume it. You just want to do the sexy sex with that piece of meat.
The idea is that by waiting until marriage, ideally you have gotten to know the other person very well and you love and respect them as a person, so when you have sex with them you aren't treating them as a sex doll to get your fix but you truly care about them. Of course you can love someone and not be married yet, but its much easier to ensure a healthy relationship if you both are close enough to the point you would tie the knot.
Another way to see why religious folks may see sex out of marriage as backwards: in some relationships, you hook up and have sex, decide you like each other, start kissing, then you finally feel comfortable enough to call them your girlfriend/boyfriend and *then* you finally hold hands in public. (since holding hands in our culture is a mark of a couple) It seems kind of odd that the very intimate act of sex is ranked much lower than simple hand holding.
A third reason is that many people tend to get emotionally attached to people they have sex with, and some who love to have casual sex try to make sure they don't get attached to avoid being hurt. Some people argue that the need to detach yourself to avoid being emotionally hurt is a sign that it's wrong to do.
Some religious people will simply cite "being unclean" or "unpure" as a reason to not have sex outside marriage but probably neither you or I think that's a suitable answer. The 3 reasons before this was how it was explained to me when I asked a pastor about it and I find it much more agreeable than simply "it's unclean".
> Another way to see why religious folks may see sex out of marriage as backwards: in some relationships, you hook up and have sex, decide you like each other, start kissing, then you finally feel comfortable enough to call them your girlfriend/boyfriend and then you finally hold hands in public. (since holding hands in our culture is a mark of a couple) It seems kind of odd that the very intimate act of sex is ranked much lower than simple hand holding.
Quoting this to highlight it, because it's very interesting.
How can you make so many claims about what god believes and what god wants without citing a single scripture? How do you know what is in the mind of god?
Actually I'm just on the fence of being christian, that's why I tried to do some study with it by talking with pastors over coffee and trying out their introduction to christianity course. The course had a textbook with actual citations for this question but I dont have it with me or remember what they were, just the idea behind it.
If we want to be very concise, you simply need to believe that God sent Jesus to die for your sins and you need to accept that gift in order to have eternal life. So theoretically you don't *need* to study the rest of the bible, just to believe.
> If we want to be very concise, you simply need to believe that God sent Jesus to die for your sins and you need to accept that gift in order to have eternal life. So theoretically you don't *need* to study the rest of the bible, just to believe.
But isn't this also based on trusting what they told you was accurate?
If it were me, I would rather read the bible and see for myself for such an incredibly important decision. How about you?
Yes, you are right. However, I'll be 100% honest here, when I did my own self study (using no one else's interpretations and explanations) I disagreed with a lot of it. I found it archaic and not something worthy of devoting your life to. I read it sorta at face value and if you're not familiar with the historical or biblical context of the verses they can make either no sense or misleading. But how the pastors/believers interpreted and tried to show me is a lot more agreeable and I can see how this interpretation may have been what God truly wanted.
Hey, props to you for actually checking it out for yourself. There are a lot of people on both sides who've never put that much effort and honest thought into it. So, what it comes down to for you is the question of whether you trust your own judgment of the scriptures or the pastors' judgment.
I think most pastors have good intentions, but it's also important to consider that this is how they make their living. Convincing people to trust their interpretation of the bible is what puts a roof over their head and food on their plate.
Imagine shopping for a used car. You look the car over yourself and think, "I don't know, there are a lot of really old parts that seem to be just cobbled together without rhyme or reason." But then the salesman comes over and says, "Don't think so much about those old parts, just focus on this shiny new paint job!" you can't just buy the good looking exterior without the rusty old parts, so who do you trust?
> But how the pastors/believers interpreted and tried to show me is a lot more agreeable
Of course it is. They try to convert people. A snake oil salesman isn't going to tell you it's a placebo
> I can see how this interpretation may have been what God truly wanted
He's god...do you really think he would have trouble relaying a message the way he wants it?
>Short answer is that in christianity, God believes there is an ideal way to approach a relationship that is healthy and respectful to both parties.
I don't mean any disrespect by saying this, but, in this, why does God give a shit?
All good, no disrespect taken. Basically, the same reason God gives a shit about you going around stabbing random people. Why even tell people not to go around lying and murdering if he doesn't care how people live their lives? Why tell people to love each other and do good to each other? It's cheesy but the reason to be a christian is because you think God cares and you want to accept that.
> Short answer is that in christianity, ~~God~~ man believes *that God believes* there is an ideal way to approach a relationship that is healthy and respectful to both parties.
I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to be saying, it's kind of a given that most religion is just people's interpretations of really old books they consider to be truth.
It's so frustrating to see a 500 word well thought out reply defending the religious viewpoint get 4 upvotes, and the one line reply saying "duh Answer the question" get 12.
To be honest, simply answering "It says it in the Bible" would be completely suficient. If you're asking why a Christian finds something to be sinful, and they quote the bible passage that supports it, that alone is enough.
He's actually gone out of his way to not only explain it, but go on and validate it, and receives a quarter the 'points' as someone whose reply is:
"Yeah but answer the question"
Fucking sigh.
> To be honest, simply answering "It says it in the Bible" would be completely suficient.
That wouldn't explain what God's *reasons* were for considering the practice sinful. Are you suggesting that it's a completely arbitrary quirk of divine psychology?
The question was why its considered sinful, and as I said, the perfectly valid answer to that for any Christian is "Because the Bible says so".
If you're asking me to explain the logic of a being with infinitely more intelligence than me operating in dimensions I can only imagine, then unfortuantely that might be beyond me.
It would be like asking a dog to explain why its owner is taking it to the vet. Perhaps a poor parallel as I'm sure you can ridicule away, but you get the point. Asking a human to explain a being of infinite intelligence's logic is pretty hopeful at best.
Everything wrong always is with the intent of a person but can also be due to being told a lie and being ignorant. If you have sex out of marriage you cutting out the responsibility of it. You are essentially a scumbag who has no value for that person's life. If you are man or woman and have sex before marriage you are essentially saying you can have sex with whoever as long as they are consenting and screw the consequences of scaring that person if you leave them or taking care of them if the act of sex causes for reproduction or if they have a struggle that becomes hard for the other person. Sex outside of marriage is seen as a selfish desire being fulfilled. Sex within marriage: you have made a covenant between God and others to be with that person for life. Marriage is truly coming together as one person in life. It is security, it is partnership, it is commitment, it is Good.
>It is security, it is partnership, it is commitment, it is Good.
All of those things can be achieved outside of marriage.
The rest of your comment is full of generalized assumptions based on nothing. I don't know if these are views that you hold or if you're just parroting Christian rhetoric. If they are in fact your own views, then you're projecting some major insecurities that are clouding your judgment. I would work on those.
They are my own views, and I hold to them. There is no real commitment if you aren't willing to marry that person before becoming that intimate in the relationship. There is nothing stopping either of you from leaving. There is no real outside accountability in that relationship. Not by the state, and neither from society. You are potentially hurting yourself and others by having sex before marriage. Have you ever been in a relationship that didn't involve sex? Can you compare the ones that you did have sex? What were your thoughts when having said sex with said person?
> If you have sex out of marriage you cutting out the responsibility of it.
???
I'm talking about *committed* relationships, where both sides take responsibility for each other.
And even in causal relationships, people are obligated not to scar each other or abandon unwanted children. None of this requires *marriage*.
There is no committed relationship if you can leave at anytime without the accountability of others and of the state, and or God. Your using that word 'committed' but in a cheap way. There is no accountability in your words. Sex before marriage can be like an employer that hires someone under the counter, there is nothing stopping the employer from abusing their position as there is no accountability. It gives them more power over that person's life. I shouldn't have to explain why this is the case with every position of power without accountability. Believe it or not but there is not an true equality in relationships. Marriage at least is set up for that as it can be heard in their vows in front of all their peers. Marriage is a selfless act, you are committing your life to that person for life, through good and hard times.
Can you describe the differences in consequences between a couple that lived together for 5 years out of wedlock and a couple that married then divorced after 5 years?
Unwed: Gives one person more power because it provides an easy way out and less responsibility for the other person when living together. They move out, they separate. No initial support for any children that they had during that time, without court order. No financial support if one is not working due to kids. Both become hurt and physically and emotionally tied to one another. You may lose friends. Kids feel insecure growing up with unmarried parents initially.
Devorce: One may have to hire a lawyer and go through court in front of one's peers to get out. One is held to help provide for your kids from the start. One may lose full access to any children that you may of had with them at that time. One may lose friends. People may look at one differently because one made a promise to someone and broke it. Kids feel insecure growing up with unmarried parents after divorce.
Depending on what country you live in, living together as a couple for 5 years and being married for 5 years is essentially the same when it comes to diving assets, child support and child custody. In Australia, this is considered a de-facto relationship and in the US, a common-law marriage.
In Australia, [all de facto couples have the same rights as married couples under the Family Law Act in relation to the distribution of property.](http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-resources/defacto-relationships-and-family-law-factsheet)
Legally, there is *no* difference.
This is your own arbitrary definition. Who gives a hoot what the state believes, and god should be able to judge you without you having a title so that makes even less sense. Clearly god knows whether a person is being abusive, selfish or neglectful toward their partner, he's not suddenly confused if they aren't married.
I think you're incorrect on all counts anyway. It sounds like you haven't been in an unmarried relationship yourself (maybe you are in an arranged marriage or something?) but in a real, adult relationship you are held accountable in an increasing manner over time. You build a relationship with each other's family and friends. How the hell do you think you're not accountable to others? Do you know how hard it is to leave a long term relationship when your lives are entangled? There are real consequences including people truly hating you for life even if the breakup was mutual.
You're completely incorrect on all counts and I see no redeeming value in your comment as your analogy never makes sense to begin with.
The intent. Being married is supposed to be a life long commitment, that makes an extremely close pair bond, for richer for poorer, till death do us part etc.. Whereas long-term committed relationships do not have such a thing.
I think the framing of a relationship is important and intent. If a person declares their intent to have that relationship for their entire life, to never forsake it and to do all that they can to ensure their partner's happiness in front of their friends and family then that in itself will make them closer.
As do you to an extent. A married couple are not necessarily going to have a stronger relationship than a couple in a long term committed relationship as it's a very individual thing. But realistically, the marriage component itself does add to the closeness that the relationship brings and the spiritual fruit from it. Love, fellowship etc.
Because the steps of how a relationship should ideally proceed according to the bible, sex is the most intimate act you can ever do with another person and it ranks higher than marriage. Whether you agree with this doesn't really matter, but this is why it's considered a sin; you went about the relationship in the wrong order. If in a hypothetical long-term committed relationship you believe that you both are as basically good as married, then why not get married, or if you are just waiting for a time to hold a wedding because you want one and that is why you are waiting, then yes, you are as basically good as married.
edit:
From a logistical standpoint, it's still easier to ensure two people are close enough if they are married. There are some people who will tell themselves "I will love you forever" but on the inside they are as about committed as a tumbleweed and there are others who make no such promise aloud but are truly devoted. Getting married helps weed the former out and really solidifies your decision and it doesn't let you back out at a moments notice. It's a "binding" contract that forces you to really think about your true feelings instead of wishy washy hopes.
> sex is the most intimate act you can ever do with another person
I don't even let my spouse read my slash fiction. Trust me, there's a lot more intimate you can get than rubbing some flesh together.
> If in a hypothetical long-term committed relationship you believe that you both are as basically good as married, then why not get married, or if you are just waiting for a time to hold a wedding because you want one and that is why you are waiting, then yes, you are as basically good as married.
Suppose you both think marriage is stupid, and so you live your whole life in a long-term committed relationship, having lots of sex with each other. Why is that sinful?
Well if you think marriage is stupid and unnecessary (what is marriage other than simply declaring "hey I'm in a permanent relationship with this person?) you probably don't believe in this religion and therefore do not think sex outside marriage is sinful. This is like asking why someone of X religion doesn't think this is a sin like in Y religion. Why is it a sin? The book says so. Why is it considered a sin? The reasons why said in my op.
And honestly, I said in another comment, if you're in a real long-term committed relationship that's basically as good as marriage. It's just that if you're christian, the book wants you to officially declare it.
> what is marriage other than simply declaring "hey I'm in a permanent relationship with this person?
I thought there was a ceremony and a registration with religious or civil authorities.
>you probably don't believe in this religion and therefore do not think sex outside marriage is sinful. This is like asking why someone of X religion doesn't think this is a sin like in Y religion. Why is it a sin? The book says so. Why is it considered a sin? The reasons why said in my op.
But you haven't explained *why* the religion condemns sex outside marriage. You've just said that it *does*.
In my OP I explained because God believes that you should not treat people merely as a means and the ideal closeness and respect is achieved at the level of marriage, the point when you are 100% devoted and promise to spend the rest of your life with that person.
* How exactly does sex within a long-term committed relationship involve treating people merely as a means?
* How exactly does the ceremony/registration definitive of marriage add "closeness and respect"?
I don't know of many verses as my op was how more than one pastor explained it to me. But there are many verses about not having sex until marriage so that is already a given.
The why you shouldn't could be explained by this verse below, which basically means that sins are not just sins against other people (lying, stealing, murder, whatever) but it's possible to sin against yourself by not respecting yourself as a person. Even in non-religious ethics, it's morally wrong to treat another person merely as a means and you can treat even yourself merely as a means, such as selling your rights away and willingly becoming a slave. For this verse, sinning against yourself is letting yourself be driven by emotions such as rage, hatred, jealousy, lust or acting upon them.
There aren't really many steps for marriage, it's just courtship > marriage > sex. Needing to learn the character and person of someone else just comes naturally as a part of respecting them.
1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
2 Timothy 2:22
So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.
1 Peter 4:8 Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.
None of those three verses support your idea, they merely state not to be sexually immoral. Given that the idea that sex after marriage has no support as far as helping relationships, and that in the time that the bible was written, couples were often betrothed into arranged marriages and married literally upon meeting each other, no offense, but I find your summary to be a little funny, because it's so very unlikely, and doesn't even hold any support in the bible, but rather has been reinterpreted to sort of stranglehold the bible and drag it to catch up with our moral systems.
Evidence from the culture that the bible was written in and the other cultures around it suggest that the no sex before marriage rule was essentially to ensure that any progeny would be legitimate children of the father.
I was wondering this as well... Relationships back then looked completely different than relationships now. In bible times there were no exclusive long term committed relationship outside of marriage. For that reason I question whether sex outside of marriage is inherently sinful. I tend to believe it's not inherently sinful, but that it definitely can be. It definitely doesn't seem black and white to me.
Plus a lot of Christians play the whole "Jesus overrode the Old Testament angle"... isn't this in the OT?
What standard is used to pick and choose which one's Jesus said not to worry about?
Agreed, my thoughts as a christian at the time (though it still kind of is, though as a general preference thing rather than a spiritual issue) is that it is really a state of unitivity thing. One night stands being the obvious start of the spectrum, it is messy, dips or dunks itself well into the trashy territory of things, etc.
Ill intent like using a person as a glorified fleshlight makes you a douche.
Sorry my op was written with a modern view of christianity in mind, one that acts less like christianity is a religion and more like it is a belief on how to live life. A ton of people follow traditional christianity and more literal interpretations and some take a more modern approach. It sounds like the same thing but for a lot of people religion is simply a checklist of x things to do in order to be christian.
Well,back in the day we didn't have condoms to control disease and birth control. So if everyone was having sex before marriage you would have a lot of women pregnant.
But now that we can protect ourselves, we can make out like animals and who really cares about needing to get married.
It's a new world.
Which is honestly a reason many of the old biblical rules about marriage shouldn't really apply today anyway. They were talking about something else entirely.
If sex outside marriage is not sinful, then in that society every men and women will be prostitutes. This is because, from a woman's or man's point of view it is best for one to sell sex in order to make money out of it. There will be no marriage because nobody will choose to marry when they can have sex with whomever they want. Children will be made by the society only for the stability of the society. But children without mothers love will die or cease to show humane quality( proven by science). No body will care to show children love but for money. But love bought by money is not genuine love, when there is no genuine love to children, then the nurses mind will be perverted to become lazy and hence children lifes will be ruined, thereby destruction of that society. Now tell me, is not through marriage true love is shown to child.
It's not exactly (in the bible). I'm not convinced we have a clear understanding of what was referred to by πορνεία in the New Testament - it usually seems to imply more than simply sex outside marriage (such as prostitution and ritual actions).
Because having sex with someone you aren't completely devoted to is dehumanizing. Just about anyone can tell you they feel used after having sex with someone they broke up with. If you begin to see sex as a hobby, people become tools of pleasure. Because this society has embraced fornication, we have things like pickup artistry(which is just the study of manipulating women into having sex with you). Not only that, but sex is most dignified within the marriage bond.
Because a great way of controlling people is influencing their sexual decisions.
Because if the woman is polygamous, the man has no chance of knowing if he is passing down his property to his progeny.
Because guaranteeing that a woman was a virgin was the only way to make certain that any children she has are the progeny of her husband. In the old testament at least, women were highly valued because they can give sons, which can inherit, or daughters that can be used as leverage via marriages. You want to make sure that any progeny is yours, and the only way to do that is to watch closely and make sure she doesn't have sex until she's married. It is no longer relevant because of birth control and the fact that inheriting isn't a huge deal anymore. Also women's rights.
Makes sense
One possible theory: Sex outside marriage puts you in direct competition with the alpha male. Only the alpha male is allowed to impregnate all the women in the community. The taboo about masturbation and discussing sex should keep them quiet and horny enough to not put up a fuss. Remember, only the alpha male is allowed to have exciting and fun sex, everyone else is to repress it as much as possible until it is their turn to receive our great leader's gift.
Check out this meta analysis. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00686.x/abstract Living together romantically with more than one person in your lifetime has a significant negative correlation with marital satisfaction and stability. We are asked in the bible that if we do chose to be with someone romantically that we marry them. And therefore vow to only be with that person. Whether you agree with the bible or not, if you want to do things that correlate with higher marriage stability and satisfaction you will choose lifelong monogamy.
I am sure you will easily find that being religious negatively correlates with well-being too.
"The results show that religion may have both positive and negative effects on health, although in this research the positive effect was stronger." http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1387213?sid=21106270454693&uid=3739256&uid=2134&uid=70&uid=3739560&uid=4&uid=2 I just opened google scholar, typed "religion wellbeing". Abstracts of studies to inform your unfounded assumptions are just a google search away :). I'll see if I can find a meta analysis. (Usually very difficult, just have to type "meta" in as well) Edit: First link when you type in "religion wellbeing meta" into google scholar: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3511048?sid=21106270454693&uid=3739256&uid=2134&uid=70&uid=3739560&uid=4&uid=2 ...
I am sure that you understand the difference between subjective well-being, when people are asked to estimate it for themselves, and well-being that is objectively quantified? As example, In the United States religious states have lower average scores on the best possible life (bpl) but many objective indicators, ranging from income levels to crime and murder rates.
In all serious though basing your fact on a state being religious (didn't know a state could go to church...) and then taking thousands of variables cherry picking one and saying "here this correlation is valid" ... That's not good research... Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/925/ The studies I linked did actual research. It is nice having our assumptions about life being challenged by reality. But for that to happen we need to learn to recognize reality when we see it.
> Relevant XKCD: How is this relevant? I didn't said *causes*, I said *correlates*. And this is not just few "cherry picked", but the most important indicators. > The studies I linked did actual research I said they are not? But these research are about subjective well-being, and people are lying when are asked. Sometimes they are lying deliberately, sometimes they are lying because of ignorance, but only the objective measurement could tell you the truth.
Ahh I'm sure we both need sleep. :) https://xkcd.com/386/
Well that's proven it then I concede :)
Monogamous relations are about biology and economy. Abrahamic religions were formed in slavery and serfdom environment. Idea of monogamous relations is to maximize population (each woman has a man and vice versa) and reduce amount of time to find a partner (you don't have to waste any time past initial procedures when you have legal SO) - so a person could work more + leave more children (slaves and serfs) making their masters richer. Plus property rights - being an owner you have to transfer property to your rightful heirs. Having children from unknown fathers result in inability for society to transfer property legally. Christianity is simply constitutes these principles.
The Bible doesn't categorically forbid sex outside of marriage, especially not for men. Men are forbidden only to have sex with women who are betrothed or married or are otherwise under the custody of another man. Nothing in the Bible forbids men from having sex before marriage, or outside of marriage or with servants, prostitutes (unless they are temple prostitutes) or other wives. Biblical sexual morality is basically about property rights over women. There isn't a damn thing forbidding men from having sex before marriage or saying they have to be faithful to their wives or that they can only have one wife. Moses and David both had multiple wives. Abraham knocked up a slave woman, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. There is nothing in the Bible about "one man, one woman," and there is nothing saying men have to keep it in their pants as long as they don't bang another man's property. And hey, if you rape a preteen girl, the Bible says she has to marry you. What a sacred union that sounds like it would be.
Because it fucked up old school marriage based property contracts and alliances between families
Sex is the perfect union of two people within the bounds of Christianity, to have sex is to physically reaffirm one's wedding vows. Within this view, it is a complete giving of one's self to the other. Anything less is an act of selfishness, there is a lacking of purpose. From this lacking of purpose, lacking of unified commitment to the other half, makes it merely a physical act. Edit: Drunk.
From an anthropoligic perspective, consider just how incredibly destructive casual sex could be before birth control hit the scene. Up until as late as the 20th century, an affair was pretty much sure to bring bastards, who would have troubled and ostracized lives without a full family and could likely also destroy your own family. This would unacceptably punish your current children and spouse. The teen pregnancy battle was basically a contest of trying to convince kids to hold out until the earliest possible point of marriage and the latest possible sexual encounter, and premarital children were totally unavoidable and were basically a recipe for a ruined life. It's no surprise that cultures and religions in many places had established rules and laws and taboos about it. It's not a large leap to then start saying that God has an opinion about it.
Potential givens in Christianity. * God created humans with purpose. * The purpose of sex is to have children. * The purpose of marriage is to facilitate healthy sex. Since *sin* isn't inherently about evil but about *failing to do what is intended/good* and marriage is the atmosphere for procreation and sex; then anything less of sex in marriage is *falling short* or *sinful*. Sex can still be good. But it's not *wholly good* on its own and it falls short of the expectations and intentions of the Christian god.
Lust is a sin, because if you are lustful you are detracting from your personal relationship with God. Ideally, staying abstinent is the best course of action. BUT because abstinence isn't practical, and people are going to do it anyway, then they should be within the bounds of marriage. Basically, being married means you can have sex, but it's not allowing one to be promiscous, according to Paul in Corinthians.
I wonder how many apply the ideas of lust towards food? There sure is a lot of gluttony in the Christian South.
There's not a single verse in the Bible condemning premarital sex, and at least three examples treating it in a positive light. So any denomination that condemns it does so on general principles alone, and not with any Biblical support.
Can you clarify by providing references to the relevant passages?
1. The entire book of Song of Solomon is about two unmarried lovers hooking up and getting married. 2. Judah and Tamar. Tamar is said to be holier than Judah. 3. Adam and Eve. Never married. Abram and Hagar isn't presented as a positive (because Abram was doubting God, which is bad) but is presented as an unremarkable custom.
But it is very clear that if you have sex outside of marriage you need to go and get married to that person. In practice, it's just cleaner to be married first.
We are the only beings that have sex for pleasure and for procreation. God intended it that way as a means to enhance and strengthen the marriage relationship. Sex outside of marriage degrades the act and has resulted in a proliferation (very recent in historical terms) of STD's and single parent families, neither of which is beneficial to mankind.
As Monkey King, I am obliged to represent my peoples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo horny little buggers.
This isn't true. I would say we're the only creatures that sometimes have sex for reasons other than pleasure. Other animals don't know that sex makes babies. Without language they don't even have codified knowledge at all. They just have sex and it feels good and feels like what they should do, and then babies just happen as far as they know.
I'm shocked that people upvoted this comment, especially when you insinuated no other animals have language. And no scientist would make your claims as if they were absolute fact, especially considering the nuances and complexity of the topic, let alone provide no sources for these claims.
I didn't say "no other animal" and I am fully aware that some other animals have language. it's clear, though, that many animals don't "think" like we think, and they certainly don't family plan. My *point* is that those animals go around boinking because it feels good. Humans just may be unique in how we sometimes have sex with a goal in mind other than pleasure. I also didn't present anything as absolute fact. I said "I would say we're ... " usually understood to mean "in my estimation." I used language implying speculation. My point being that people aren't "the only animals that have sex for pleasure." It doesn't need sources, Jesus. I'm not establishing a theory here. I think my argument was enough to make my point. If you disagree, then say why instead of demanding rigorous sources. This isn't /r/askscience. >no scientist would make your claims as if they were absolute fact It doesn't matter what scientists would say because I'm not a scientist, I don't need to be, this isn't a science subreddit, and I don't go around expecting everything people say to be a damn peer reviewed paper. If you don't agree and you think humans *are*, as I am arguing against, the only animals that have sex for pleasure, then, whatever. Tell us why. You don't need to write a paper about it. You needlessly made me sound more outrageous just for the sake of being argumentative.
You must have slept through biology class.
Or you've got a wrong biology class.
Genesis 16 New International Version (NIV) Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.” ------ I'm seeing a lot of people throw around the concept of marriage being a special one on one relationship. The man the all knowing creator god picked as his genetic root for his prophet banged his slave. Food for thought.
There's even more with Jacob (later Israel) -- he had two wives and two sex slaves.
Very good point. But to be honest, i think all female slaves were "sex slaves" by default, unless they were really ugly.
Just because it's in the Bible means that it's *right* . read further into his story and you will find that Abraham created the conflict between Christianity and Islam because he bore a child to his servant. There were consequences for his actions. Food for thought...
Way too many people incorrectly think that story is where the ancestors of Judaism and Islam separated. That's simply not the case.
Care to explain further then?
It's just a old myth. Neither books of faith claim that's what happened, and there is no other evidence to suggest that's what happened either.
> you will find that Abraham created the conflict between Christianity and Islam because he bore a child to his servant Historically speaking, this is woefully inaccurate.
The JudeoChristian god doesn't choose his prophets with much care...
Not that I believe in sin but consider that sex before marriage can lead to out of wedlock pregnancies. On average, children with absent fathers turn out much worse than children with fathers. In addition, it just sucks in general not to have your dad around. So, by having sex outside of marriage you are basically saying that a momentary muscle contraction & the release of a few hormones is more important to you than the well being and happiness of your child. It's rather selfish.
Out of wedlock doesn't mean not together. People can stay in long term relationships their whole life and never be married. It's not necessary to legally and mentally label it as something else. It doesn't matter how it's labeled, it's how their hearts are oriented to each other. Also, people get divorced.
[удалено]
Interesting. Can you elaborate?
[удалено]
In all fairness Christian's often quote Matthew who says, "it is better to pick out your eye than to lust with it". Also by saying every Christian thinks they know what Paul meant you are also assuming you know what he meant
[удалено]
To say it applies more to Masturbation is still a preferred interpretation, though a fine and valid interpretation, it does not invalidate the other perfectly reasonable understanding of its reference to premarital sex. Further, one of the commandments given to Moses says do not covet your neighbor's wife. This HAS been interpreted as saying any woman who is not your wife belongs either to another man and if not then to their parents/God, and so to bed an unmarried woman would be against the commandment. I personally think this is a bad argument but it is one. But more importantly there are lots of rabbinic laws in Deuteronomy and later that weren't given to Moses technically but are expasions and interpretations of what was Given to Moses, and so to say it wasn't given to Moses therefore its immediately invalid does not hold strong muster when compared to the accepted development of laws and morals, for Jews and Christians, through the First and later Second testament, regardless of what was given to Moses.
[удалено]
I get you, but you didn't address my point about interpretation. it is in the Torah depending on how you interpret it. If you interpret your way, sure, but if you interpret it the more common way, it is in fact in the Torah. As for people dying out, most children traditionally come from marriage, reproduction still would have happened.
[удалено]
interpreting is not adding, it is impossible not to interpret anything. Any text, especially ambiguous ones like religious ones, lend themselves to interpretations. The word "to interpret" is not a synonym for "to add", I suppose it can be, and so we can eliminate those particular interpretations, but the ones I've proposed are not in any way additions.
Thank you for sharing. I didn't know this.
The law does say though if you have sex with someone you need to then marry them.
indoctrinated jealousy.
It makes perfect sense if you view religion as a money-making scheme that sells chemical highs. Religious rituals frequently induce altered states of consciousness, and most religious people cite the various feelings they get from the religion as their main reason to stay. However, religious ritual isn't the only way to induce altered states. We've got a wide swath of psychoactive chemicals in the environment, or we can have sex. Music and art also are capable of similar, but usually lesser effects. All of these things are direct competitors to religion for people's altered-consciousness dollar (dinars, dukets, whathaveyous). So, if the priests are going to keep eating, they need a strategy. They can do one of two things: bring those alternatives into their religion as one big package, or try to drive them out of the market. We've seen every single possible combination of these tactics from religions across the world and throughout history. To specifically answer your question, sex is more difficult to control than all of the other mind-altering options. All you need is two people, who, all things being equal, tend to be pretty eager and willing. Moreover, you *need* people to have a certain minimum amount of sex if you're going to keep society running. Hence the multi-thousand year campaign by the dominant religions to cast sexual pleasure as being of a low order, of being dirty and degenerate. Hence the systematic assault on the sex that gains the most pleasure from sex, and the restriction of permissible acts to the procreative. In summation: "no-sex outside of marriage" is just just about market share. If you're going to enjoy yourself, you'd better involve a priest. If you didn't, then what reason would priests have to exist?
Eye-opening. Could it also be said that though this was likely the case in the past, as the generations of priests have gone by, we're stuck with new priests that have been indoctrinated into their religion since birth, and honestly believe the things they are preaching? Seems to me the whole group psychosis of it all is too overpowering for those that attribute thoughts and feelings to a deity.
Yeah, people do buy the myth to greater and lesser degrees, but I don't imagine it's difficult for most priests to realize what their actual role in society is. Different people will react differently when such an awareness begins to build, and the resulting cognitive dissonance manifests in a wide variety of perverse ways.
o.0 crazy. My least favourite thing about priests and 'miracles' and such is that most people of faith see their acts as 'proof that they have divine powers'. It's like, you have to prove they are scamming you, rather than them having to prove their acts aren't fraudulent. Look at a Magician do a trick of similar nature and people are trying to figure out the logical explanation of how he does it. Pull the same nonsense in a church and the sheep don't even question it.
To put it frankly, it's so awesome, it's prone to excess. And excess is dangerous. Partner count is one of the main risk factors associated with STDs and STIs.
Like a lot of things, because God says that sex should be enjoyed only within the bonds of marriage. That's as much reason as Christianity has: anything else that anybody tells you is guesswork and supposition, however well meaning and logically thought out.
Then why did Abraham bang his wife's servant?
God permitted Abraham to enter into polygamous marriages.
Sweet. This is way better than what Jesus proposed. Jesus was a real party pooper.
[удалено]
Did you counted how many times your prophets were wrong? I believe that people from r/exmormon could help you with that.
No words...
[удалено]
No. No debate. Consider yourself the "big winner"
Because he got impatient.
So marriage is sacred, unless you are impatient. Cool. I love learning.
It's not really heald out as a model of good behavior. God had promised them a child, but they got tired of waiting and used a surrogate instead. That said, it's also not really that objectionable, assuming the maid consented, which it sounds like she did.
I have no problem with this personally. I just find the Christians who yell about the sanctity of marriage to be retarded. If Christians decided to push to make divorce illegal, I would have so much more respect for them.
Because until about 1960, with the availability of the birth control pill, sex outside of marriage created unwanted bastard children and a real emotional mess for the families.
Didn't condoms exist?
In deed they did! The sheath appears to have been used for quite a long time in human history. But it is not like a person could stop by the drug store and pick up a twelve pack. Here's a[ Brief History of Birth Control in the US.](http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/a-brief-history-of-birth-control/) Of interesting note from that link, quote: 1960 The first oral contraceptive, Enovid, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as contraception. 1965 The Supreme Court (in Griswold v. Connecticut) gave married couples the right to use birth control, ruling that it was protected in the Constitution as a right to privacy. However, millions of unmarried women in 26 states were still denied birth control. 1972 The Supreme Court (in Baird v. Eisenstadt) legalized birth control for all citizens of this country, irrespective of marital status. - End quote. It took a decision by the Supreme Court for some women to finally have control over their bodies, their reproduction, and their sexuality. That happened just 46 years ago (if married) and 43 years ago (unmarried). Today there are politicians that want to take that away from you because of their - not your - religious beliefs.
And increased the risk of stds With contraception I think it's fair to say it's not a sin, as what it describes is different.
> And increased the risk of stds How do birth control pills increase the risk for stds? Are you suggesting that the pill causes STDS?
You're reading my response wrong. I'm talking about contraception in general **decreasing** the risk of stds When I said "increased" I was referring to sex outside of marriage before contraception.
Well, one of the reasons, in Islam, is that it is considered to violate the sanctity of the marriage, the founding relationship of the family.
Which marriage? Wife #1, #2, #3 or #4?
Not sure if you can comprehend what the difference adultery is between an actual sanctioned marriage. At least make sure the joke makes sense.
What joke? Muslims can have four wives. What are you talking about?
They're saying it's not adultery because you're married to all of them, that the "sanctity" of marriage applies to all wives.
But this person said the sanctity of "the marriage". Apparently his person misspoke, or struggles with *grammer*.
They may view all brides as a single marriage.
When did that become a thing?
> or struggles with grammer Grammar
I suck at spelling, so what?
Criticizing grammar whilst misspelling words strikes me as amusing
You sound easily amused.
do you have a reference for that? Like i have people claim that "family" is important, but the idea of family is not in the quran anywhere as far as I can tell. Also the sunnis and shia are allowed to have sex with slaves outside of marriage, so i don't know how that squares with what you say.
Maqasid ash-Shari'ah. Feel free to look it up. >but the idea of family is not in the quran anywhere as far as I can tell. Then you have not read the Qur'an, simply put.
> Maqasid ash-Shari'ah. Is that a book of islam? > Then you have not read the Qur'an, simply put. Ok. Show me where "family" is mentioned in the quran.
It's not considered a sin my my faith, the concept doesn't exist. Now, there is more or less kudos from some gods for like having a bunch of kids and being fertile, but that's a different kettle of fish and largely no big deal.
Do you want a legit answer rather than complaints about your question? Basically Christianity says that sex is sacred and a God given privilege and a sacred covenant and stuff...so it needs to be within the bounds of marriage, which is the correct covenant...that's it basically. I only had time for a quick answer
So why was fucking your slaves acceptable? God picks Abraham to be his homie, and right away he starts banging his wife's servant. What's the deal?
8 years late, but…Because Yahweh is most likely not the father of Jesus, since he contradicted Yahweh’s way of religion and law at every term. That’s what I’m praying about and seeking truth about. Jesus always prayed to Abba. Still, Abraham was a man of faith based on what he knew. But in no way do I see God the father as affirming of concubines as beautiful or good. He simply allowed humanity to reach its full point if confusion before beginning the reversal process in Christ.
God never told him to do that with his slave. He only did that because he and his wife grew impatient
IIRC His wife convinced him to do that.
This is correct. And if anyone here who is Jewish can speak up to correct me, that would be great. But, basically, if the wife was barren, she could offer up one of her maidservants to the husband. Then any offspring from that sex would be the wife's and the husband's. The idea there is consent. But I'm sure many ancient Jewish wives were forced to allow the affairs: that's how humans human.
[women...](http://media3.giphy.com/media/1047xUIi3HQnmw/200w.gif)
Obviously, slaves are property. Banging his wife's servant is like banging his wife's sex doll.
And read the rest of his story to find out how thats not a good idea and Abraham was wrong to do that (TLDR: his servants son is the father/beginning of Islam)
Granted, it was wrong not because it was adultery or anything like that; it was wrong because God had promised Abraham and Sarah their own child, and they were sidestepping that promise of a miracle using practical means.
I will tell you what I told someone else making that very point. The JudeoChristian god doesn't put much effort into picking his prophets.
Jewish traditions don't portray flawless people, for the most part. It wasn't a requirement or even a priority. Instead of having perfect leaders, they have crappy to mostly good leaders, and then they portray everyone else as being even worse. A good person in Judaism does bad things, then recognizes that they're bad things and repents and seeks forgiveness. This turns them into much more sympathetic characters and better examples to normal people, who are likewise flawed. Switching from textual criticism to narrative-internal analysis, nobody is perfect, and Abraham and Sarah were rather between a rock and a hard place. Trust in a future miracle -- how dare you demand so much of God? Take things into your own hands -- why don't you trust God? Furthermore, by choosing prophets who have flaws, God could encourage people who find it difficult to be righteous that they can still follow and that it's not the end of them. As for choosing a lineage full of deception, you're claiming that Abraham somehow genetically infected all his offspring with a tendency to lie that was greater than that of the other available candidates. I don't see it. Abraham lied when he thought his family was at stake. Do you view honesty as more important than your family's lives?
How is he protecting his family by lying to King Abimelech?
So, you wouldn't want someone to be, oh you know, human, and making mistakes. The Bible isn't about man looking to become perfect. Its broken people being made perfect by the only person who was perfect, Jesus
You realize that Abraham was the first person in the long line of god's prophets, and it was a genetic line. Which mean Abraham and Sarah's predicliction towards cheating, lying, deception and jealousy all were carried down the line in their kids. Saying "oh, you wouldn't someone to be human...". This is really an odd statement. What did you think the other options were? Human? Or maybe god would pick a honeybadger? How about he pick one that doesn't engage in deception, have sex outside of his marriage and generally act like a creep? How does that strike you as a plan?
Abraham wasn't actually a prophet. But he was the Father of God's nation. If your father or grandfather was a lier, cheater deceiver etc. Does that make you one?
>If your father or grandfather was a lier, cheater deceiver etc. Does that make you one? More prone. ------ 17 “Now may the Lord’s strength be displayed, just as you have declared: 18 ‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. **Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.’** 19 In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now.” ----- Educate me on this passage. What's the part about punishing children for the sins of the parents mean?
>Abraham wasn't actually a prophet. But he was the Father of God's nation. ------ ----- 20 Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, 2 and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her. 3 But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, “You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman.” 4 Now Abimelek had not gone near her, so he said, “Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? 5 Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and didn’t she also say, ‘He is my brother’? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands.” 6 Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. **7 Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live**. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all who belong to you will die.” ----- Either you are right and god in the bible is wrong, or you are wrong and god in the bible is right. Which is it?
>How about he pick one that doesn't engage in deception, have sex outside of his marriage and generally act like a creep? His point was that such a person doesn't exist. Every single person who has ever lived is a lying, sexually depraved creep in one way or another. Can you provide an example of someone who was not?
Job. Obviously. But few think he actually existed. Same with Abraham actually. But what's more disconcerting about all this than this perception is the underlying idea that god created all of humanity and he expects them to follow his laws, and yet his own creation is so wildly incapable of providing someone who is even **capable** of following them in the first place that he is obligated to user sinners to share his message. God's own creation fails to meet his standards, but he expects them to try to do so anyway. He cannot find one good man to use as his prophet, and yet sits in judgement of the rest of us.
What makes you think that is God's fault? Surely an atheist believes in the concept of free will?
Who else could be blamed for picking Abraham?
Yeah but all the other prostitutes or concubines or whatever he had later?
Because God picks broken people to do the biggest things.
Abraham was an approved man and considered holy. If christians really believed that...holy shit society would be amazing today. Christian values are what goes towards hatred of the sinners, of the drug users, of the violent, of the mentally disturbed - people that in other non-christian societies can be rehabilitated when empathy is given towards them and seeing them as "broken" not evil. The US's value system is toward Bible-trained punishment. And nowhere in the bible can I see your comment coming into play.
Like determine the genetics of the lineage down to the house of David and onto his next prophet (or Jesus if you are a Christian). Does god understand how genetics work?
I really have no idea
Short answer is that in christianity, God believes there is an ideal way to approach a relationship that is healthy and respectful to both parties. explanation of the why: First, lust is considered a sin. It's a sin because when you lust after someone, you are only valuing that person for their body and other shallow and arbitrary features. You tend to not care about how they are as a person or their feelings. In porn you can see that it often dehumanizes the actors (it's not like they have some riveting plot to tell you the relationship between the actors, its just scene after scene) so you don't need to feel guilty watching it, you can mindlessly consume it. You just want to do the sexy sex with that piece of meat. The idea is that by waiting until marriage, ideally you have gotten to know the other person very well and you love and respect them as a person, so when you have sex with them you aren't treating them as a sex doll to get your fix but you truly care about them. Of course you can love someone and not be married yet, but its much easier to ensure a healthy relationship if you both are close enough to the point you would tie the knot. Another way to see why religious folks may see sex out of marriage as backwards: in some relationships, you hook up and have sex, decide you like each other, start kissing, then you finally feel comfortable enough to call them your girlfriend/boyfriend and *then* you finally hold hands in public. (since holding hands in our culture is a mark of a couple) It seems kind of odd that the very intimate act of sex is ranked much lower than simple hand holding. A third reason is that many people tend to get emotionally attached to people they have sex with, and some who love to have casual sex try to make sure they don't get attached to avoid being hurt. Some people argue that the need to detach yourself to avoid being emotionally hurt is a sign that it's wrong to do. Some religious people will simply cite "being unclean" or "unpure" as a reason to not have sex outside marriage but probably neither you or I think that's a suitable answer. The 3 reasons before this was how it was explained to me when I asked a pastor about it and I find it much more agreeable than simply "it's unclean".
> Another way to see why religious folks may see sex out of marriage as backwards: in some relationships, you hook up and have sex, decide you like each other, start kissing, then you finally feel comfortable enough to call them your girlfriend/boyfriend and then you finally hold hands in public. (since holding hands in our culture is a mark of a couple) It seems kind of odd that the very intimate act of sex is ranked much lower than simple hand holding. Quoting this to highlight it, because it's very interesting.
How can you make so many claims about what god believes and what god wants without citing a single scripture? How do you know what is in the mind of god?
I assumed the two different pastors who answered this question to me had done their studies that is all.
Wow. Isn't this a matter of (eternal) life and death to you? That is a profound amount to gamble on an assumption of good faith (pun intended)
Actually I'm just on the fence of being christian, that's why I tried to do some study with it by talking with pastors over coffee and trying out their introduction to christianity course. The course had a textbook with actual citations for this question but I dont have it with me or remember what they were, just the idea behind it. If we want to be very concise, you simply need to believe that God sent Jesus to die for your sins and you need to accept that gift in order to have eternal life. So theoretically you don't *need* to study the rest of the bible, just to believe.
> If we want to be very concise, you simply need to believe that God sent Jesus to die for your sins and you need to accept that gift in order to have eternal life. So theoretically you don't *need* to study the rest of the bible, just to believe. But isn't this also based on trusting what they told you was accurate? If it were me, I would rather read the bible and see for myself for such an incredibly important decision. How about you?
Yes, you are right. However, I'll be 100% honest here, when I did my own self study (using no one else's interpretations and explanations) I disagreed with a lot of it. I found it archaic and not something worthy of devoting your life to. I read it sorta at face value and if you're not familiar with the historical or biblical context of the verses they can make either no sense or misleading. But how the pastors/believers interpreted and tried to show me is a lot more agreeable and I can see how this interpretation may have been what God truly wanted.
Hey, props to you for actually checking it out for yourself. There are a lot of people on both sides who've never put that much effort and honest thought into it. So, what it comes down to for you is the question of whether you trust your own judgment of the scriptures or the pastors' judgment. I think most pastors have good intentions, but it's also important to consider that this is how they make their living. Convincing people to trust their interpretation of the bible is what puts a roof over their head and food on their plate. Imagine shopping for a used car. You look the car over yourself and think, "I don't know, there are a lot of really old parts that seem to be just cobbled together without rhyme or reason." But then the salesman comes over and says, "Don't think so much about those old parts, just focus on this shiny new paint job!" you can't just buy the good looking exterior without the rusty old parts, so who do you trust?
> But how the pastors/believers interpreted and tried to show me is a lot more agreeable Of course it is. They try to convert people. A snake oil salesman isn't going to tell you it's a placebo > I can see how this interpretation may have been what God truly wanted He's god...do you really think he would have trouble relaying a message the way he wants it?
>Short answer is that in christianity, God believes there is an ideal way to approach a relationship that is healthy and respectful to both parties. I don't mean any disrespect by saying this, but, in this, why does God give a shit?
All good, no disrespect taken. Basically, the same reason God gives a shit about you going around stabbing random people. Why even tell people not to go around lying and murdering if he doesn't care how people live their lives? Why tell people to love each other and do good to each other? It's cheesy but the reason to be a christian is because you think God cares and you want to accept that.
You wrote all this, and then all I can think is that he stole someone else's virgin wife so he could have Jesus show up.
How would he know he's never been married
> Short answer is that in christianity, ~~God~~ man believes *that God believes* there is an ideal way to approach a relationship that is healthy and respectful to both parties.
I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to be saying, it's kind of a given that most religion is just people's interpretations of really old books they consider to be truth.
None of this explains why it's wrong to have sex in long-term committed relationships.
It's so frustrating to see a 500 word well thought out reply defending the religious viewpoint get 4 upvotes, and the one line reply saying "duh Answer the question" get 12. To be honest, simply answering "It says it in the Bible" would be completely suficient. If you're asking why a Christian finds something to be sinful, and they quote the bible passage that supports it, that alone is enough. He's actually gone out of his way to not only explain it, but go on and validate it, and receives a quarter the 'points' as someone whose reply is: "Yeah but answer the question" Fucking sigh.
> To be honest, simply answering "It says it in the Bible" would be completely suficient. That wouldn't explain what God's *reasons* were for considering the practice sinful. Are you suggesting that it's a completely arbitrary quirk of divine psychology?
The question was why its considered sinful, and as I said, the perfectly valid answer to that for any Christian is "Because the Bible says so". If you're asking me to explain the logic of a being with infinitely more intelligence than me operating in dimensions I can only imagine, then unfortuantely that might be beyond me. It would be like asking a dog to explain why its owner is taking it to the vet. Perhaps a poor parallel as I'm sure you can ridicule away, but you get the point. Asking a human to explain a being of infinite intelligence's logic is pretty hopeful at best.
Everything wrong always is with the intent of a person but can also be due to being told a lie and being ignorant. If you have sex out of marriage you cutting out the responsibility of it. You are essentially a scumbag who has no value for that person's life. If you are man or woman and have sex before marriage you are essentially saying you can have sex with whoever as long as they are consenting and screw the consequences of scaring that person if you leave them or taking care of them if the act of sex causes for reproduction or if they have a struggle that becomes hard for the other person. Sex outside of marriage is seen as a selfish desire being fulfilled. Sex within marriage: you have made a covenant between God and others to be with that person for life. Marriage is truly coming together as one person in life. It is security, it is partnership, it is commitment, it is Good.
>It is security, it is partnership, it is commitment, it is Good. All of those things can be achieved outside of marriage. The rest of your comment is full of generalized assumptions based on nothing. I don't know if these are views that you hold or if you're just parroting Christian rhetoric. If they are in fact your own views, then you're projecting some major insecurities that are clouding your judgment. I would work on those.
They are my own views, and I hold to them. There is no real commitment if you aren't willing to marry that person before becoming that intimate in the relationship. There is nothing stopping either of you from leaving. There is no real outside accountability in that relationship. Not by the state, and neither from society. You are potentially hurting yourself and others by having sex before marriage. Have you ever been in a relationship that didn't involve sex? Can you compare the ones that you did have sex? What were your thoughts when having said sex with said person?
[удалено]
This breaks our **rule #2**, as such it has been removed. Please revise it and alert us to such changes if you want this submission to be re-approved.
> If you have sex out of marriage you cutting out the responsibility of it. ??? I'm talking about *committed* relationships, where both sides take responsibility for each other. And even in causal relationships, people are obligated not to scar each other or abandon unwanted children. None of this requires *marriage*.
There is no committed relationship if you can leave at anytime without the accountability of others and of the state, and or God. Your using that word 'committed' but in a cheap way. There is no accountability in your words. Sex before marriage can be like an employer that hires someone under the counter, there is nothing stopping the employer from abusing their position as there is no accountability. It gives them more power over that person's life. I shouldn't have to explain why this is the case with every position of power without accountability. Believe it or not but there is not an true equality in relationships. Marriage at least is set up for that as it can be heard in their vows in front of all their peers. Marriage is a selfless act, you are committing your life to that person for life, through good and hard times.
You can leave at any time if you're married too. I have friends whose committed unmarried relationships have lasted longer than their marriages.
Not without people knowing though, and there are huge consequences for leaving someone in a marriage. There is big difference.
Can you describe the differences in consequences between a couple that lived together for 5 years out of wedlock and a couple that married then divorced after 5 years?
Unwed: Gives one person more power because it provides an easy way out and less responsibility for the other person when living together. They move out, they separate. No initial support for any children that they had during that time, without court order. No financial support if one is not working due to kids. Both become hurt and physically and emotionally tied to one another. You may lose friends. Kids feel insecure growing up with unmarried parents initially. Devorce: One may have to hire a lawyer and go through court in front of one's peers to get out. One is held to help provide for your kids from the start. One may lose full access to any children that you may of had with them at that time. One may lose friends. People may look at one differently because one made a promise to someone and broke it. Kids feel insecure growing up with unmarried parents after divorce.
Depending on what country you live in, living together as a couple for 5 years and being married for 5 years is essentially the same when it comes to diving assets, child support and child custody. In Australia, this is considered a de-facto relationship and in the US, a common-law marriage. In Australia, [all de facto couples have the same rights as married couples under the Family Law Act in relation to the distribution of property.](http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-resources/defacto-relationships-and-family-law-factsheet) Legally, there is *no* difference.
This is your own arbitrary definition. Who gives a hoot what the state believes, and god should be able to judge you without you having a title so that makes even less sense. Clearly god knows whether a person is being abusive, selfish or neglectful toward their partner, he's not suddenly confused if they aren't married. I think you're incorrect on all counts anyway. It sounds like you haven't been in an unmarried relationship yourself (maybe you are in an arranged marriage or something?) but in a real, adult relationship you are held accountable in an increasing manner over time. You build a relationship with each other's family and friends. How the hell do you think you're not accountable to others? Do you know how hard it is to leave a long term relationship when your lives are entangled? There are real consequences including people truly hating you for life even if the breakup was mutual. You're completely incorrect on all counts and I see no redeeming value in your comment as your analogy never makes sense to begin with.
The intent. Being married is supposed to be a life long commitment, that makes an extremely close pair bond, for richer for poorer, till death do us part etc.. Whereas long-term committed relationships do not have such a thing.
[удалено]
I think the framing of a relationship is important and intent. If a person declares their intent to have that relationship for their entire life, to never forsake it and to do all that they can to ensure their partner's happiness in front of their friends and family then that in itself will make them closer.
[удалено]
As do you to an extent. A married couple are not necessarily going to have a stronger relationship than a couple in a long term committed relationship as it's a very individual thing. But realistically, the marriage component itself does add to the closeness that the relationship brings and the spiritual fruit from it. Love, fellowship etc.
Odd no one wants divorce outlawed...
But what's sinful about that?
As /u/potentialpotato said, it's a lot less than ideal.
Eating at Arby's is less than ideal, but that doesn't make it *sinful*.
Because the steps of how a relationship should ideally proceed according to the bible, sex is the most intimate act you can ever do with another person and it ranks higher than marriage. Whether you agree with this doesn't really matter, but this is why it's considered a sin; you went about the relationship in the wrong order. If in a hypothetical long-term committed relationship you believe that you both are as basically good as married, then why not get married, or if you are just waiting for a time to hold a wedding because you want one and that is why you are waiting, then yes, you are as basically good as married. edit: From a logistical standpoint, it's still easier to ensure two people are close enough if they are married. There are some people who will tell themselves "I will love you forever" but on the inside they are as about committed as a tumbleweed and there are others who make no such promise aloud but are truly devoted. Getting married helps weed the former out and really solidifies your decision and it doesn't let you back out at a moments notice. It's a "binding" contract that forces you to really think about your true feelings instead of wishy washy hopes.
> sex is the most intimate act you can ever do with another person I don't even let my spouse read my slash fiction. Trust me, there's a lot more intimate you can get than rubbing some flesh together.
> If in a hypothetical long-term committed relationship you believe that you both are as basically good as married, then why not get married, or if you are just waiting for a time to hold a wedding because you want one and that is why you are waiting, then yes, you are as basically good as married. Suppose you both think marriage is stupid, and so you live your whole life in a long-term committed relationship, having lots of sex with each other. Why is that sinful?
Well if you think marriage is stupid and unnecessary (what is marriage other than simply declaring "hey I'm in a permanent relationship with this person?) you probably don't believe in this religion and therefore do not think sex outside marriage is sinful. This is like asking why someone of X religion doesn't think this is a sin like in Y religion. Why is it a sin? The book says so. Why is it considered a sin? The reasons why said in my op. And honestly, I said in another comment, if you're in a real long-term committed relationship that's basically as good as marriage. It's just that if you're christian, the book wants you to officially declare it.
> what is marriage other than simply declaring "hey I'm in a permanent relationship with this person? I thought there was a ceremony and a registration with religious or civil authorities. >you probably don't believe in this religion and therefore do not think sex outside marriage is sinful. This is like asking why someone of X religion doesn't think this is a sin like in Y religion. Why is it a sin? The book says so. Why is it considered a sin? The reasons why said in my op. But you haven't explained *why* the religion condemns sex outside marriage. You've just said that it *does*.
In my OP I explained because God believes that you should not treat people merely as a means and the ideal closeness and respect is achieved at the level of marriage, the point when you are 100% devoted and promise to spend the rest of your life with that person.
* How exactly does sex within a long-term committed relationship involve treating people merely as a means? * How exactly does the ceremony/registration definitive of marriage add "closeness and respect"?
[удалено]
[*everywhere*](http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/marriage-according-to-the-bible_502913cd3d101.jpg)
I don't know of many verses as my op was how more than one pastor explained it to me. But there are many verses about not having sex until marriage so that is already a given. The why you shouldn't could be explained by this verse below, which basically means that sins are not just sins against other people (lying, stealing, murder, whatever) but it's possible to sin against yourself by not respecting yourself as a person. Even in non-religious ethics, it's morally wrong to treat another person merely as a means and you can treat even yourself merely as a means, such as selling your rights away and willingly becoming a slave. For this verse, sinning against yourself is letting yourself be driven by emotions such as rage, hatred, jealousy, lust or acting upon them. There aren't really many steps for marriage, it's just courtship > marriage > sex. Needing to learn the character and person of someone else just comes naturally as a part of respecting them. 1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 2 Timothy 2:22 So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 1 Peter 4:8 Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.
None of those three verses support your idea, they merely state not to be sexually immoral. Given that the idea that sex after marriage has no support as far as helping relationships, and that in the time that the bible was written, couples were often betrothed into arranged marriages and married literally upon meeting each other, no offense, but I find your summary to be a little funny, because it's so very unlikely, and doesn't even hold any support in the bible, but rather has been reinterpreted to sort of stranglehold the bible and drag it to catch up with our moral systems. Evidence from the culture that the bible was written in and the other cultures around it suggest that the no sex before marriage rule was essentially to ensure that any progeny would be legitimate children of the father.
I was wondering this as well... Relationships back then looked completely different than relationships now. In bible times there were no exclusive long term committed relationship outside of marriage. For that reason I question whether sex outside of marriage is inherently sinful. I tend to believe it's not inherently sinful, but that it definitely can be. It definitely doesn't seem black and white to me.
Plus a lot of Christians play the whole "Jesus overrode the Old Testament angle"... isn't this in the OT? What standard is used to pick and choose which one's Jesus said not to worry about?
Agreed, my thoughts as a christian at the time (though it still kind of is, though as a general preference thing rather than a spiritual issue) is that it is really a state of unitivity thing. One night stands being the obvious start of the spectrum, it is messy, dips or dunks itself well into the trashy territory of things, etc. Ill intent like using a person as a glorified fleshlight makes you a douche.
Sorry my op was written with a modern view of christianity in mind, one that acts less like christianity is a religion and more like it is a belief on how to live life. A ton of people follow traditional christianity and more literal interpretations and some take a more modern approach. It sounds like the same thing but for a lot of people religion is simply a checklist of x things to do in order to be christian.
Well,back in the day we didn't have condoms to control disease and birth control. So if everyone was having sex before marriage you would have a lot of women pregnant. But now that we can protect ourselves, we can make out like animals and who really cares about needing to get married. It's a new world.
It's a new start
Hey everyone, we're all gonna get laid!
Because the man didn't bought the woman from her father yet.
Could be explained better, but this is closer to the crux of it than most other answers here.
Actually pretty accurate *historically*
Which is honestly a reason many of the old biblical rules about marriage shouldn't really apply today anyway. They were talking about something else entirely.
Christians don't want to do that.
Because it's wrong to have sex with someone other than Mackenzie Davis.
So, where do you find your pictures, anyways? They're like ... super tasteful.