Living in Sin - Really "Sin"?

[SMHappyface]

All good little boys and girls are brought up to believe that premarital sex is "sin." Now this is my general question - today it is WIERD to not have sex - what do you think - is it still a 'sin' according to the Bible, but we have made it socially acceptable, or did our parents read/interprete it wrong, or is it something in between, like acceptable between committed, loving partners? I'm just curious what the rest of you'all are thinking...

[Moose]

This could really be another can of worms.

All good little boys and girls are brought up to believe that premarital sex is "sin."

Correction, all good parents teach their children, (whether they be good or bad), that premaritiual sex is "sin".

is it still a 'sin' according to the Bible,

Always has been, always will be.

but we have made it socially acceptable,

Media, and the majority has made it socially acceptable. You, however, haven't tainted the ideal, otherwise, you wouldn't of posed such a question. That gives me hope.

or did our parents read/interprete it wrong, or is it something in between, like acceptable between committed, loving partners?

Our Elders went from being respected for their knowledge and wisdom, to discarded and forgotten for their comittment to standards. They didn't read it wrong. This and future generations just want their own set of rules.

I'm just curious what the rest of you'all are thinking...

Well, there ya go. I think you're searching yourself, and for that, I'm filled with hope....good luck, I hope you make the right decision.....

[quankanne]

you're addressing two different topics here:

 

"living in sin" is living with someone without the benefit of marriage. Also known as "shacking up" by some folks.

 

premarital sex is fornication, plain and simple, or sleeping around with the benefit of marriage.

 

and yeah, both are sins, though society is less concerned about doing the right thing in this instance, and promoting what "feels good."

[grace2005]

According to the bible yes pre-marital sex is a sin. It is fornication. God created sex to be enjoyed between 2 people who are committed to each other for life. The reason God does not want us to have sex before marriage is not because He wants to spoil our fun but rather He knows the consequences sex in an uncommitted relationship has on the soul.

 

You see whether you realize it or not there is more involved in sex besides body parts coming together and the physical pleasure. Both of you are giving a piece of your soul away to each other. Often times when a break up happens after there was sexual activity involved in the relationship one of the partners feels used and empty inside. There is an emotional attachment that comes with sex. That's why those kind of break ups lead to depression and sometimes suicide. Most cases of suicide are triggered by a break up because the emotional attachment that took place from sexual activity. Hence this is why God has said that sex is reserved in the confines of marriage where 2 people have vowed to cherish and love one another until death. It is to your benefit and the benefit of your boyfriend/girlfriend to wait until marriage to engage in any sexual activity. God did not make arbitrary rules for us. He set up guidelines for our protection.

[Bogun]

All good little boys and girls are brought up to believe that premarital sex is "sin."

This is not quite true. Most western conservative christian families bring their kids up telling them this is a "sin". There are a lot of other people, that are not "bad", in the world that do not fit into this category.

 

I'm a little rusty on my bible knowledge, but does it actually say this in the bible? Isn't just a catholic teaching that its a sin to have sex before marriage?

[HoldOn]

Oh man. I was just getting over my guilt again when I read this post.

 

I'm engaged and in a sexual relationship. We don't live in the same city and we're planning a wedding for Summer 2007. (because I have to graduate from school before we can live together.) I know that pre-marital sex is a sin, but I just can't bring myself to stop having sex for TWO YEARS. I'm a practicing Catholic, but I can't take communion because of this issue. Can't I just pretend that we're already married??? I mean in the old days you just made vows to each other and that was enough.

 

Anyway, I'm planning on going to confession a few months before we get married and stopping the sex then. But every few months I go through big guilt about it. But on the other hand, I just feel it's not fair to have two years of my life where I could be having sex and I'll never get those years back again!

[Tangerina]

Sin is what you make of it, as far as I am concerned. Doing things that go against your deepest held beliefs or that hurt other people uneccesarily are what I think falls into this category. If your deepest helb belief is that premarital sex is wrong, then I guess it is a sin.

I was raised in a family where we were taught that premarital sex is a good thing as long as you are old enough, mature enough and educated enough about protecting yourself to be in a healthy sexual relationship. I was taught that since sex is such an important part of being human there is nothing wrong with exploring it in a safe and consentual way and that it is actually an important thing to explore before marriage because being sexually compatable with your life partner, while not the ultimate concern when choosing a mate, is very important. I have been in two committed, long term, love-based sexual relationships and when the first one ended after 3 years, yes, it really hurt, but I deeply and fully believe that the fact that it was a sexual relationship did not make it hurt any more or less, because that was not my expectation going into it. I really truly greatly value what we learned together as each other's firsts, and what it helped me learn about my own body and sexuality. It helped me be a more open and comfortable person to be comfortable with that side of myself. I wasn't hurt by the split because I "gave him part of my soul" in sex, I was hurt because I gave him part of my soul in love.... yes, the sex was in part an expresssion of that love, but if we hadn't been sexually active it wouldn't have hurt more or less to lose the love.

Now I am currently in a long-term love-based committed, exclusive, sexual relationship with a wonderful man who has had many sexual partners and in no way has my or his past sexual experiences damaged our hearts to a degree which prevents us from sharing them fully with each other. We are great friends and confident happy compatible lovers because we are both very comfortable with our sexuality.

[slubberdegullion]

If you're involved in an exclusive relationship, then you're already married in the eyes of God (or so a pastor told me once). The marriage ceremony is a social convention that happens to be practiced in a church, but regardless of the spin that the faithful may put on it, it has precious little to do with religion.

[Yamaha]

When we are single we are expected to find out about sex and become a good lover but when we get married we are expected to be true to each other and only for each other. Is it any wonder why we have such a hard time being faithful in marriage. We have no practice in being exclusive.

[Tangerina]

hmmm.... I kind of disagree with you yamaha... I mean, this could deffinitely be the case for a lot of people, but learning about how to be sexual, even with multiple partners, does not train someone to be unfaithful. My boyfriend has had many lovers before me, two of them were serious exclusive long-term relationships that didn't work out for one reason or another and the rest were either more casual dating relationships or even some one night things.... but I know he is aboslutely committed to me now that we are together, because I am someone that he wants with his whole heat to have this kind of relationship with. His ex girlfriend got mad at him and called him a player because he saw many different women before he found a serious relationship and he had to say to her, "you know what, it doesn't always work out like it did for you and me where you form a great relationship with the first person you try with, or how you found the love of your life on the first try after we broke up... I just don't feel that with any of these people so I am not going to pretend that I do but I am going to put myself out there and meet people until I meet someone that I do feel I have a chance of having something great with." and now we are together and I know he would never cheat on me because he has a lot of experience with people, both sexual and emotional/interpersonal, and so he knew what he was looking for and he found it with me and knows what it is worth to him. My ex was my first and I never felt like I could trust him because he had no comparison and was always gazing away towards the other side of the fence and some imaginary green grass.

[SMHappyface]

If you are in a committed relationship, you are already married in the eyes of God...

 

Interesting - why do you think this? What defines marriage - a legal piece of paper, or a cultural ceremony? Or perhaps a promise between two people? Biblically wives were chosen by a variety of ceremonies, differing between cultures - most of which were not condemned. From my reading in the Bible, the only black and white says that uncommitted sex outside of a marriage is sin - but another good question would be, what is marriage?

[Outcast]

We have no practice in being exclusive.

 

You don't need 'practice' in being exclusive. Maybe sufficient cojones to actually follow through with the whole concept of commitment but that isn't dependent on how often you've had sex.

 

If anything, having several partners shows you that it's more or less the same thing with everyone so there isn't a whole pile of incentive to go try out new body parts. Not only that, but you also figure out that technique is teachable so everyone can be great.

[Neptune]

In the USA I think there is a piece of paper called a marriage certificate, which I have never signed:D Anyway, I heard a fellow comment once the paper is signed that`s what it`s all about. So, I guess legally that is that.

 

From a religious point of view it probably varies considerably from one faith or denonmination to the next. However for the most part marriage is considered some form of public annoucement or ceremony witnessed by other people where a couple pronounces vows stating their union.

[Yamaha]

My ex was my first and I never felt like I could trust him because he had no comparison and was always gazing away towards the other side of the fence and some imaginary green grass.

 

Just because someone has been with many lovers doesn't mean they are emotionally ready for a committed relationship. The "sow your wild oats" phrase comes to mind. Someone untrustworthy has nothing to do with how many people they have been f^cking, it means they are cheaters and lier's. I hope you are right in your analysis of him. I have found that love and commitment is the deciding factor of forming a lasting relationship and not that he has had so many that he now knows what he wants.

[Tangerina]

Oh Yamaha, I guess we do agree then. I was taking your earlier statement to say that the reason that people are unfaithful in marriage is because they "practiced" being non-exclusive by dating around. I totally agree with your point that "Someone untrustworthy has nothing to do with how many people they have been f^cking, it means they are cheaters and lier's. I hope you are right in your analysis of him. I have found that love and commitment is the deciding factor of forming a lasting relationship and not that he has had so many that he now knows what he wants." I was just tring to point out that in my experience I felt completely insecure with my first partner even though neither of us had been with other people, but very secure with my current partner even though we HAVE been with other people. As you said, this is overwhelmingly because of the people they are and what we have between us and the love that we share, but also with these particular people in this particular case I feel that experience or lack thereof has helped form the people that they are and has played a role in teaching them about what they want from a relationship. That is the whole point of dating around until you find "the one"- it is practice.

[quankanne]

Isn't just a catholic teaching that its a sin to have sex before marriage?

 

all Christian religions, including Catholicism, teach that premarital sex is wrong. The Catholic Church has the guilt thing down a little bit better than the other, IMHO :D

[grace2005]

That's really a good question as to what marriage is in the eyes of God. Does a person have to get a marriage license in order to be married in front of God? Is a wedding necessary? I have no idea really. These are questions I've vascilated back and forth on.

 

At any rate I am not a catholic. I am just a born again believer in Jesus Christ. I do not believe that committing the sin of fornication will send you to hell. Jesus died to take away the sins of the world from the eyes of the Father. Fornication is one of those sins. Then again I think I should start another thread on this topic as to who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.

[SMHappyface]

All good interesting points. IMO, I don't believe any one sin will send you to hell - it's more of where your heart is and nobody but God can know that. The question is not whether fornication is a hell-bound sin, but what defines fornication. When does a relationship become a marriage in Biblical terms - is it when two people pledge themselves together forever, today engagement? If you follow the Biblical guidance, it is fornication to sleep with somebody other than your married partner, so when you lose your virginity, according to this logic, you are 'married' in the eyes of God, then the next person is fornication, unless your last person slept with somebody first and you are now free to move on, at least according to Levitical law. Alot of hokus pokus IMO. Jesus forgave a prostitute many times, although he didn't condone her behavior.

 

Anyways, off track. I guess my question is more than if having sex with random person is wrong (because according to the Bible it is), but at what part in your relationship do you believe you are committed to the point where sleeping together is ok, and do you believe a legal or religious paper makes it a marriage in the eyes of God, or is that between the two people in love and the rest is purely optional...

 

Interesting points everybody

[ButtonPusher]

Isn't just a catholic teaching that its a sin to have sex before marriage?

 

all Christian religions, including Catholicism, teach that premarital sex is wrong. The Catholic Church has the guilt thing down a little bit better than the other, IMHO

 

Perhaps my knowledge of the bible has gone completely but I do not ever recall reading in the new testament that it is a "sin" to have sex with an unmarried person. I'm sure it says somewhere in the old testament some crap about "not wasting your seed on the ground" but a lot of christian groups today basically follow the new testament. And don't get me started on the old testament. Remember how homosexuals are treated in one of the old testament books?

 

I apologise in advance if someone knows of a passage in the new testament that says it is a sin.

[Moose]

Let me put it this way, and this is just my opinion. Look at it from this perspective:

 

If you have sex with someone in which you do not plan to spend the rest of your intimate life with, you're giving that part of yourself to someone who doesn't matter. And denying your spouse your whole self.

 

A marriage is a Holy Covenant between man, woman and God. No piece of paper is needed in my opinion. Once the pledge is made to foresake all others, and done in front of God, with the aid of a clergy, that's it.

 

If you've had sex prior to marriage with multiple people, you stand before your spouse, and God a fragmented soul. You can't possibly offer all of yourself to him or her.

 

Matthew 14:4-9:

 

And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE" and said,`FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'" "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The portion I highlighted kinda explains where I'm coming from. When a man and a woman become, "One Flesh", it should only be with the one they have chosen not to be seperated from......ever. So in my mind, don't have sex unless you plan on spending the rest of your life with that person.

[konfused]

What happens when your spouse has an affair and scripturally speaking, it is OK to get a divorce? Then you marry someone else. All is right in the eyes of God. Am I still only giving a fragmented self to my new spouse?

 

The forbidding of premarital sex deal is really a borrowed idea. Borrowed from the likes of Socrates and Aristotle. Their philosophy included a necessity to be pure sexually. In the Old Testament, permarital sex was not forbidden because of purity, it was to preserve the Jewish line of ancestry. No outsiders.

 

Moreover, in the nomadic lifestyle that the Hebrews lived, women were of utmost importance. Why? Because they were the limiting factor in reproduction. That is why their is such a double standard when it comes to premarital sex. There are instances in the Old Testament where the men have had adulterous affairs and still been right with God. Keep in mind that up until the industrial revolution, children were an economic asset. Having more children meant having more help with the farming duties.

 

Also, women married very early in those times. Most of the time nearly right after puberty. To have sex with basically an old child could do irreversible damage to her reproduction capabilities. It doesn't take a long to correlate such effects and prohibit the cause.

 

This all may sound very impersonal and unGodly in terms of motives. I, myself, have a hard time accepting these rationales. I would love to think it is all about love and purity. Not the case. Take for instance in the Old Testament when a married women couldn't get pregnant by her husband. Here comes the maid or slave girl to save the day.

 

Moose, I've been perusing these forums for a while reading your comments. I'd like to hear your beliefs on whether you think slavery is an acceptable practice (definitely OK by Bible standards) and why do you think God changed from a merciless, vengeful God in the Old Testament to the loving, compassionate God of the New Testament?

 

I was reading up on the evolutionary theory. If one buys into such a theory that entails survival at all costs, not necessarily survival of the individual, but definitely of the blood line they see that it is a selfish and sometimes underming way of life. When one accepts such a theory that states they put their interests above all others, they must walk through each day skeptical and quite unsure of their motives. Very comparable to the sinner mentality we find in the Christian dogma.

 

It is also interesting to comare evolutionary theory to salvation. Living things are prone to do whatever it takes to survive. From the young tree growing out of a rock outcrop to the antelope who are willing to wade through crocodile infested rivers to get to fertile fields to feed their young (no alliteration intended). We as animals, also must deal with such fundamental urges as survival. But even humans, who God placed above other animals must come to terms with death. Ah, but wait. We can overcome death, and in essence, 'survive' beyond death in Heaven.

 

One last comment. The New Testatment has roughly 35 books depending on your denomination. 19 of those books were written by Paul, a man who openly confesses to never having met the human Jesus. It is from Paul's Letter to the Romans where we acquire the 'justification by faith' standard followed by most Protestants. The Epistle of James, however, subtely mocks such a belief when it says that faith without works is a dead faith. James, as we all know, was the brother of Jesus. Who is more likely to be more familiar with the human Jesus and what he stood for?

 

Paul may have known the experience of Jesus very well. Let us not undermine the life-altering effect that the experience of Jesus can have on an individual. But we measure such changes based on changes in lifestyle (a.k.a., works). The human Jesus we will never know. This is what is meant when someone says it went from a religion of Jesus to a religion about Jesus.

 

That is all for now.

[ButtonPusher]

Matthew 14:4-9:

 

 

Quote:

"Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

 

I appreciate your interpretation of the passage moose, but does your translation of this passage really say "certificate of divorce" ???? I didn't realise they had certificates for divorce 2500 years ago.

This translation makes moses sound like a lawyer dismissing his clients ex.

[bab]

I appreciate your interpretation of the passage moose, but does your translation of this passage really say "certificate of divorce" ???? I didn't realise they had certificates for divorce 2500 years ago.

This translation makes moses sound like a lawyer dismissing his clients ex.

 

I've got two translations in front of me... one says certificate of divorce, and the other says letter of divorce. Seems like there really was a literal paper document. A huge portion of the old testament reads like a law book though, so it's not suprising. Although I must mention, Matthew 14:4-9 isn't what Moose quoted. That passage is about Herod beheading John the Baptist. Moose actually means Matthew 19.

 

 

Okay, here's the serious question about that passage though.

FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'" "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

 

How do we know that "joined" is "sex"? This passage could have absolutely nothing to do with sex at all. Couldn't the commitment that is made in the marriage ceremony be the "joined"? If that's the case pre-marital sex doesn't affect this joining of Husband and Wife. This is my interpretation. Marriage ain't all about 'booty.

[Neptune]

The New Testament says give to Ceasar what is Ceasars but also give to God what is God`s.

Pertaining to marriage that means a commitment to one another for God and a marriage certificate for divorce court:p

[Moose]

What happens when your spouse has an affair and scripturally speaking, it is OK to get a divorce? Then you marry someone else. All is right in the eyes of God. Am I still only giving a fragmented self to my new spouse?

Yes.

The forbidding of premarital sex deal is really a borrowed idea. Borrowed from the likes of Socrates and Aristotle. Their philosophy included a necessity to be pure sexually. In the Old Testament, permarital sex was not forbidden because of purity, it was to preserve the Jewish line of ancestry. No outsiders.

 

Moreover, in the nomadic lifestyle that the Hebrews lived, women were of utmost importance. Why? Because they were the limiting factor in reproduction. That is why their is such a double standard when it comes to premarital sex. There are instances in the Old Testament where the men have had adulterous affairs and still been right with God. Keep in mind that up until the industrial revolution, children were an economic asset. Having more children meant having more help with the farming duties.

 

Also, women married very early in those times. Most of the time nearly right after puberty. To have sex with basically an old child could do irreversible damage to her reproduction capabilities. It doesn't take a long to correlate such effects and prohibit the cause.

 

This all may sound very impersonal and unGodly in terms of motives. I, myself, have a hard time accepting these rationales. I would love to think it is all about love and purity. Not the case. Take for instance in the Old Testament when a married women couldn't get pregnant by her husband. Here comes the maid or slave girl to save the day.

All of this typing could've been avoided. Look at this particular part of the verse again:

"Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

You can see that all of the variables you mentioned was not the intended outcome. Had man stayed the course, there wouldn't be the need to keep the Jewish bloodline pure, the woman wouldn't be forced to marry so young, all women would be fertile and we'd all live to be 600 / 700 years old......

Moose, I've been perusing these forums for a while reading your comments. I'd like to hear your beliefs on whether you think slavery is an acceptable practice (definitely OK by Bible standards) and why do you think God changed from a merciless, vengeful God in the Old Testament to the loving, compassionate God of the New Testament?

Jesus taught us to love and treat others the way we would want to be loved and treated. Unless you're willing to be a slave for someone, you shouldn't ask anyone else to be for you. My God didn't change at all. He is still a vengeful, merciless, loving and compassionate God. He is never waving, always constant, always consistant.

James, as we all know, was the brother of Jesus. Who is more likely to be more familiar with the human Jesus and what he stood for?

I'd have to say Paul would know better. James was hopelessly biased. And although he was Jesus' brother, does that mean he knew God? Paul did. If you have God in your heart, you can and will know what Jesus stood for. I've known my brother all of his life. I just found out not too long ago that he's a shriner.....what does that tell you?

The human Jesus we will never know.

Speak for yourself. I've been promised that I would be with Jesus on the new Earth....so I've already planned to hang out with Him.......

How do we know that "joined" is "sex"? This passage could have absolutely nothing to do with sex at all. Couldn't the commitment that is made in the marriage ceremony be the "joined"?

That's a good question. I don't think it matters really since it's clear that God hates divorce and supports monogamy.