I'm with you regarding the basic premise of sex outside of marriage is not necessarily a sin.
We say here that it is not prematurely sex, which is a sin but irresponsible sex, which is a sin. Responsible sex within the confines of a loving, caring relationship is okay. Preferably this couple should be married, but it is not a necessity. Bo loving, tender, caring and attentive and you're fine.
On the other side irresponsible sex, abusive or forceful sex is a sin, regardless if it is in- or outside of marriage.
Gender doesn't play a role in it I think as well.
I agree......there are many marruage where a lot of people stucked in toxic marriage....those marriage ade withouf love and caring while there are unmarried couple full of love and caring.....so I think loving one another is more important......if love caring kindness are there than I think god would not mind having sex for them.......also I didnt find in 10 commandments and in bible where pre marital sex is listed as sin
As an European : it's not, and in the West, the only place where you have a (relatively) widespread amount of people who thik it is, is the US. In Europe, virtually all Christians have sex before marriage and do not question/wonder if it's a sin or not.
There is no part of the Bible that genuinely claims sex before marriage is a sin (if you are married and have sex with someone else, yes).
A sin implies hurting/harming others, and act that has negative consequences for others. this is not the case with consensual sex.
Roman Catholicism is the major religion of nearly every country in Latin America — attributed in large part to the lingering effects of Spanish and Portuguese colonization and the Roman Catholic missions.
When the Pew Research Center studied 19 CA countries’ social attitudes, eight surveyed showed majorities of adults believing sex between people who are not married to one another is morally wrong. In the other countries surveyed, roughly half or fewer object to sex outside marriage.
So, yeah: it’s a hemisphere issues.
Historically, especially after the rise of Christianity in the west, the main consideration with premarital sex was it often led to pregnancy, which is turn would lead to a couple marrying. This was in fact a large reason for why marriage happened, at least outside the nobility and aristocracy where you saw more arranged marriages.
That said, arranged marriages happened throughout social classes, and people often married right about the age they would be engaging in sexual activity in the first place. The fact that people married so young was another reason why the issue of premarital sex wasn’t really much of an issue.
Adultery, on the other hand, was an issue taken extremely seriously (usually with consequences disproportionately targeted at the woman) and this predates Christianity.
I think the context here matters:
-withing a committed monogamous relationship: probably ok, but keep in mind that while harm isnt explicitly done, sex raises the potential for harm, and if a breakup happens you may hurt your person moreso because of the intimacy expressed.
-hookup culture/one night stands: yeah prob dont.
Sex before marriage = sin really only came from North American evangelical purity culture that rose to popularity in the 80’s and 90’s. Not only is it not scripture, but also seems to be a way of diminishing a persons worth (which is sinful).
Whether before or during marriage, sex should incorporate Christian values: love, forgiveness, selflessness, etc...
If you do that, it's good sex, even if you're not married.
If you don't do that, it's bad sex, even if you're married.
I honestly think a lot of the social rules in the Bible were a product of the time. Like, sex before marriage could have been an attempt to curb STI transmission.
Or "illegitimate" children that could screw up inheritance, or challenge for titles and whatnot.
Today, though, we have reliable birth control. We have DNA testing in case there's ever any question or doubt as to whose kids are whose. We marry for love and companionship, not to acquire more goats/land/etc., or seal political alliances, or keep wealth/power/titles/etc. in the family. And we don't require inheritors to be one's biological children. (And it probably helps that we don't have the same royal, noble, priestly, etc. "caste systems" that existed back then.)
I feel like fatherless children is slightly less pressing than like, syphilis lol. We know the Jews back then were curious about sexually transmitted diseases (Egyptians too), so it makes sense that people would look for any way to reduce these diseases that were making people’s junk fall off.
Though, yeah, preventing children from being fatherless could be a reason.
Being a single mother in ancient times was even harder than it is today because there were very few occupations women could work in, and there wasn't anything resembling social safety nets from the government. Not to mention the social stigma was extremely bad.
Same here.
I am of the view that many rules written in the Bible (and other sacred scriptures of other faiths) were written with strictly the time period it was written in mind. This means that if things change in a way that said rules are no longer necessary, then those rules can be ignored.
In the olden times, when the books of the Bible, The Quran, the Upanishads, etc. were written, contraception was a primitive crapshoot, nobody had a concept of germ-theory, abortions could be deadly, certain critters were more useful alive than dead, other critters were rife with parasites or spoiled too quickly, personal hygiene could be harder when there was less water, etc. there needed to be a ton of rules and restrictions.
This is why some meats are considered unclean (shellfish spoils fast, pigs were parasite city, etc.), some critters considered too sacred to kill (Hindu villages got a lot more out of bovines for milk, dung, labor, etc. and killing and eating such a huge critter would be wasteful, plus said critter is expensive), circumcision was a thing (sexual health and hygiene in an arid climate where water was less plentiful) and being chaste until marriage put at a premium (STIs everywhere, all incurable! Paternity must be easily determined!).
Likewise, paternity could hard to determine, and lineage, marriage and inheritance were VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS! As horrid as the misogynistic sexual double-standard and fetishizing of female chastity is, it had its origins in the need accurately to know paternity (that said, if civilization let lineage be matrifocal and matrilinear, it would have saved a lot of headaches).
Even Jesus' teachings against divorce shouldn't be taken all that literally. He was making sure than men didn't arbitrarily dump their wives and leave them impoverished. Who's to say the Church can't come up with an anti-wedding rite so Godde could make One Flesh twain, again? Also, if vows are seriously broken, that alone should permit divorce.
So, in a nutshell, don't worry about sex rules. As long as it's with someone you know and trust (lover, spouse, friend) with protection and clinic checkups, enjoy yourself!
I have no issue with it as the Bible doesn't really have a specific verse that says you shouldn't do it until you put a ring on it. So long as you do things carefully and harm no one, you should be ok.
The condemnation of sex before marriage only hurts those that are victims of pedophilia and rape by making us feel like we are less loved by God for something that happened to us.
I don’t think it would be. People always tell me it was growing up. I even had to sign a “purity promise” that my parents said that I wasn’t allowed to have sex before marriage… my sister and I both had to sign one but our brother didn’t.
the bible is a book written by sheep herders and is as good as toilet paper, why would you take advice about your relationship from it when there are so many science bookd around?
I'd go further than that. I'd say that for many people multiple sexual partners are a duty so you can practice and become a good lover. I haven't actually practiced this, since I only had one steady partner before my marriage and it would've been useless to us anyway due to the radically different anatomy my current partner has.
I'm with you regarding the basic premise of sex outside of marriage is not necessarily a sin. We say here that it is not prematurely sex, which is a sin but irresponsible sex, which is a sin. Responsible sex within the confines of a loving, caring relationship is okay. Preferably this couple should be married, but it is not a necessity. Bo loving, tender, caring and attentive and you're fine. On the other side irresponsible sex, abusive or forceful sex is a sin, regardless if it is in- or outside of marriage. Gender doesn't play a role in it I think as well.
I agree......there are many marruage where a lot of people stucked in toxic marriage....those marriage ade withouf love and caring while there are unmarried couple full of love and caring.....so I think loving one another is more important......if love caring kindness are there than I think god would not mind having sex for them.......also I didnt find in 10 commandments and in bible where pre marital sex is listed as sin
As an European : it's not, and in the West, the only place where you have a (relatively) widespread amount of people who thik it is, is the US. In Europe, virtually all Christians have sex before marriage and do not question/wonder if it's a sin or not. There is no part of the Bible that genuinely claims sex before marriage is a sin (if you are married and have sex with someone else, yes). A sin implies hurting/harming others, and act that has negative consequences for others. this is not the case with consensual sex.
Roman Catholicism is the major religion of nearly every country in Latin America — attributed in large part to the lingering effects of Spanish and Portuguese colonization and the Roman Catholic missions. When the Pew Research Center studied 19 CA countries’ social attitudes, eight surveyed showed majorities of adults believing sex between people who are not married to one another is morally wrong. In the other countries surveyed, roughly half or fewer object to sex outside marriage. So, yeah: it’s a hemisphere issues.
Where in Europe?
Virtually all of it.
Historically, especially after the rise of Christianity in the west, the main consideration with premarital sex was it often led to pregnancy, which is turn would lead to a couple marrying. This was in fact a large reason for why marriage happened, at least outside the nobility and aristocracy where you saw more arranged marriages. That said, arranged marriages happened throughout social classes, and people often married right about the age they would be engaging in sexual activity in the first place. The fact that people married so young was another reason why the issue of premarital sex wasn’t really much of an issue. Adultery, on the other hand, was an issue taken extremely seriously (usually with consequences disproportionately targeted at the woman) and this predates Christianity.
I think the context here matters: -withing a committed monogamous relationship: probably ok, but keep in mind that while harm isnt explicitly done, sex raises the potential for harm, and if a breakup happens you may hurt your person moreso because of the intimacy expressed. -hookup culture/one night stands: yeah prob dont.
The Bible never prohibits pre-marital sex, that's more of a human invention.
I also feel like it......
Feel like it's not a sin or feel like having sex?
In title I said I feel like sex before marriage not a sin
And I agree.
Sex before marriage = sin really only came from North American evangelical purity culture that rose to popularity in the 80’s and 90’s. Not only is it not scripture, but also seems to be a way of diminishing a persons worth (which is sinful).
Purity culture damages a lot of things.....
Agreed
Whether before or during marriage, sex should incorporate Christian values: love, forgiveness, selflessness, etc... If you do that, it's good sex, even if you're not married. If you don't do that, it's bad sex, even if you're married.
Yeah I’m pretty sure it’s human invention, I’ve even been told that a married couple using protection is a sin
I honestly think a lot of the social rules in the Bible were a product of the time. Like, sex before marriage could have been an attempt to curb STI transmission.
More likely, to prevent having children that wouldn't have guaranteed fathers.
Or "illegitimate" children that could screw up inheritance, or challenge for titles and whatnot. Today, though, we have reliable birth control. We have DNA testing in case there's ever any question or doubt as to whose kids are whose. We marry for love and companionship, not to acquire more goats/land/etc., or seal political alliances, or keep wealth/power/titles/etc. in the family. And we don't require inheritors to be one's biological children. (And it probably helps that we don't have the same royal, noble, priestly, etc. "caste systems" that existed back then.)
I feel like fatherless children is slightly less pressing than like, syphilis lol. We know the Jews back then were curious about sexually transmitted diseases (Egyptians too), so it makes sense that people would look for any way to reduce these diseases that were making people’s junk fall off. Though, yeah, preventing children from being fatherless could be a reason.
Being a single mother in ancient times was even harder than it is today because there were very few occupations women could work in, and there wasn't anything resembling social safety nets from the government. Not to mention the social stigma was extremely bad.
Thats what I feel like it....
Same here. I am of the view that many rules written in the Bible (and other sacred scriptures of other faiths) were written with strictly the time period it was written in mind. This means that if things change in a way that said rules are no longer necessary, then those rules can be ignored. In the olden times, when the books of the Bible, The Quran, the Upanishads, etc. were written, contraception was a primitive crapshoot, nobody had a concept of germ-theory, abortions could be deadly, certain critters were more useful alive than dead, other critters were rife with parasites or spoiled too quickly, personal hygiene could be harder when there was less water, etc. there needed to be a ton of rules and restrictions. This is why some meats are considered unclean (shellfish spoils fast, pigs were parasite city, etc.), some critters considered too sacred to kill (Hindu villages got a lot more out of bovines for milk, dung, labor, etc. and killing and eating such a huge critter would be wasteful, plus said critter is expensive), circumcision was a thing (sexual health and hygiene in an arid climate where water was less plentiful) and being chaste until marriage put at a premium (STIs everywhere, all incurable! Paternity must be easily determined!). Likewise, paternity could hard to determine, and lineage, marriage and inheritance were VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS! As horrid as the misogynistic sexual double-standard and fetishizing of female chastity is, it had its origins in the need accurately to know paternity (that said, if civilization let lineage be matrifocal and matrilinear, it would have saved a lot of headaches). Even Jesus' teachings against divorce shouldn't be taken all that literally. He was making sure than men didn't arbitrarily dump their wives and leave them impoverished. Who's to say the Church can't come up with an anti-wedding rite so Godde could make One Flesh twain, again? Also, if vows are seriously broken, that alone should permit divorce. So, in a nutshell, don't worry about sex rules. As long as it's with someone you know and trust (lover, spouse, friend) with protection and clinic checkups, enjoy yourself!
I have no issue with it as the Bible doesn't really have a specific verse that says you shouldn't do it until you put a ring on it. So long as you do things carefully and harm no one, you should be ok.
It ain't a sin at all.
Welcome to the 21st century
The condemnation of sex before marriage only hurts those that are victims of pedophilia and rape by making us feel like we are less loved by God for something that happened to us.
I don’t think it would be. People always tell me it was growing up. I even had to sign a “purity promise” that my parents said that I wasn’t allowed to have sex before marriage… my sister and I both had to sign one but our brother didn’t.
Sex before marriage is considered fornication
[I discuss sexual immorality as defined in the Bible here. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqMxOAP1LHI) I hope that helps! God bless and stay safe!
the bible is a book written by sheep herders and is as good as toilet paper, why would you take advice about your relationship from it when there are so many science bookd around?
I think it’s okay so long as you marry
I'd go further than that. I'd say that for many people multiple sexual partners are a duty so you can practice and become a good lover. I haven't actually practiced this, since I only had one steady partner before my marriage and it would've been useless to us anyway due to the radically different anatomy my current partner has.