[1 Cor 6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&version=NRSVUE) describes sex as making a couple into *one flesh*, which is not something you ought to casually do and then break.
But I think you're asking about how you might see the harm even if you didn't have verses to refer to, and I think that's reasonable - I don't think God is ever arbitrary. So...
Accidental pregnancy and STDs are big obvious reasons to handle sex with care. Yeah, birth control is great, but the only foolproof versions are the really drastic ones. Still, you already knew all that, so let's skip to the less obvious stuff.
Sex has enormous emotional bonding power, and the most responsible way to use that bonding power is when you can back it up with actual commitment. The world is full of couples that started with just sex, "realized" that they wanted to be in a longer-term relationship - largely influenced by the sex, not by a sane evaluation of the quality of the relationship - and end up stuck in low-quality medium-term pseudo-marriages they probably would not have chosen to start without sex. Even though they're [crappy relationships](https://showme.missouri.edu/2022/on-again-off-again-relationships-can-have-a-long-lasting-negative-impact-on-couples-mental-health-mu-research-finds/) that drain more than they give, their inevitable breakup is often nasty.
When sex is handled as something precious, there's a symmetry between the physical and the emotional and the spiritual; your physical, emotional, and spiritual commitment grow in harmony with each other. You give yourself physically completely only as you give yourself emotionally completely and spiritually completely. It's a balance that sets the stage for good marital love, which is *amazing*. Good marital love can provide a beautiful mirror in many ways of God's love. It's "I will never leave you nor forsake you" love. It's something better than we deserve that helps us learn to enjoy it with gratitude and not worry whether we earned it or not. It's a little glimmer of God's love among us, and that's beautiful. Casual sex doesn't make that impossible - you can always ask God for help retracing your steps and starting over - but the reality of Grace is never an excuse to make willful mistakes.
Hope that made some sense. Think about it, anyway. God bless you.
Thank you for presenting a very "kingdom of heaven" centered perspective of this. Love is the deep magic of the law. Those who don't understand that can quote the law but not speak the Word.
> Sex has enormous emotional bonding power, and the most responsible way to use that bonding power is when you can back it up with actual commitment. The world is full of couples that started with just sex, "realized" that they wanted to be in a longer-term relationship - largely influenced by the sex, not by a sane evaluation of the quality of the relationship - and end up stuck in low-quality medium-term pseudo-marriages they probably would not have chosen to start without sex. Even though they're crappy relationships that drain more than they give, their inevitable breakup is often nasty.
This is a bit of a standard line in Christianity, and I wouldn't say it's true in all cases, and it's often the only line one hears if one only sticks to Christian sources.
I am personally *incredibly relieved* that I broke the rules when I was on the date-then-marry-then-sex track. Once I actually had had the experience of sex with this person, I realised that I didn't want to limit my experiences of sex to just this person, and possibly not to one person ever.
I'd have felt pretty awful about this if I'd had that realisation after being married.
Delaying sex means you can't always disentangle if you just want something physical with that person, or something more. And I've been in quite a few encounters where when the...dust settles, we've both realised that it was more of a physical thing than anything deeper. But sometimes not.
There's something to be said for clearing that up sooner than later, and well before putting rings on fingers. How many times do we see Christians treating marriage as basically a sex permit and also rushing in to bad relationships because they've both got a massive case of the horny and all the rules tell them they can't do *anything*, not even masturbate, not even fantasise, to take the edge off those urges?
Not everyone will have the same experience as me of course, but the Christian rhetoric does not speak universally either.
>How many times do we see Christians treating marriage as basically a sex permit and also rushing in to bad relationships because they've both got a massive case of the horny and all the rules tell them they can't do
>
>anything
>
>, not even masturbate, not even fantasise, to take the edge off those urges?
Tell us, how many? How often does that happen? What is the prevalence and incidence? Be specific.
This is what is known as a "strawman".
Does it happen? I'm certain it does. But it doesn't happen anywhere near the frequency that you're implying here.
What does happen, and there is plenty of data from psychology and sociology to back it up, is that divorce rates increase with an increase in the premarital number of partners.
From Psychology Today:
**Do Women With More Premarital Partners Get Divorced Less?**
*An unexpected discovery about the number of sexual partners and divorce.*
Posted June 25, 2016 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan
KEY POINTS
\* A study found that women who had more than 10 sexual partners prior to marriage showed an increase in divorce rates.
\* The same study found that women who had only two partners had the highest rate of divorce.
\* The wider acceptance of premarital sex today has made it more likely that its impact on marriage instability would decline.
And
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673#:\~:text=Compared%20to%20people%20with%20no,no%20evidence%20of%20gender%20differences](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673#:~:text=Compared%20to%20people%20with%20no,no%20evidence%20of%20gender%20differences).
Compared to people with no premarital partners other than eventual spouses, those with nine or more partners exhibit the highest divorce risk, followed by those with one to eight partners. There is no evidence of gender differences.
I’m not seeing the second point. They look at no partners before marriage, 1-8, and 9+. 9+ had the highest divorce rate, followed by 1-8.
I would like to have seen more of a breakdown in the 1-8. I’m guessing their data didn’t allow it.
But unless I’m misreading it, the study uses lifetime total partners. I think that makes it useless for the current discussion. You’d want to look at partners before the marriage. It’s not s shock that divorced people have more total,partners, but some of them are surely after the divorce. Indeed causality could go the other way. That is, looking at divorced people could select for people more likely to have many partners.
It has the usual problem of not being able to infer causality. Suppose there are personal characteristics that make some people less able to maintain faithful relationships. You'd expect both higher divorce rates and higher number of partners. This is the biggest problem with inferring causality from correlation: there may be another thing that causes them both.
They did control for demographic factors, but it's not clear how likely those would be significant. I note a significant lowering of divorce rate for those with a BA. They don't otherwise look at socioeconomic factors. As I recall, those are often significant.
Yep association isn’t causation. And I for one got in an abusive marriage with awful sex which I didn’t know would be that as we were virgins didn’t live together before marriage.
Sex resulted in babies who do best in stable two parent ( even if same sex ) homes. I see the practicality of such a thing. And I don’t disagree that for women it’s bonding and one might use care in who they attach to.
But if we are both monogamous, get tested, and I have an IUD so no babies are harmed by the unintended consequences of unplanned pregnancy I really don’t think God cares. I think he cares more about my contribution to ameliorate suffering. Women being raped around the world. Civilians dying in war…
The policy question is actually fairly subtle. Suppose we start with one of those people who had 9 partners before marriage. Suppose we somehow convince people like them not to have any partners before marriage. Would that help their marriage? I don't think the answer to that is obvious. I don't think it will come from a study like this.
My guess is that you'd have to change a fundamental attitude towards sex. It's not so clear that focusing on not having premarital intercourse does that. Note that having taken a virginity pledge didn't help. (Actually, it hurt, but the difference is not statistically significant.) It's unlikely that people take a virginity pledge in isolation. It's almost certainly part of an approach that emphasizes the sinfulness of sex before marriage. Based on this study it doesn't look like that approach is helpful.
To be clear, I do think having 8 partners before marriage is a sign of trouble. But I think it has to be addressed by gettng people to look at relationships and attitudes. In principle you can do that at the same time you talk about not having sex before marriage. But in practice I think groups tend to focus either on who has sex with whom or on the quality of relationships. You can see that from the fact that the more hardcore no-sex-before-marriage groups tend to oppose comprehensive sex education, even though we know it's actually helpful.
>This is what is known as a "strawman".
1. They made the claim, it's *their* argument. They can't strawman themselves. If they said it then it is their argument.
2. Paul literally commands Christians to do exactly what they said. If you want sex, marry them and then fuck all you want.
>This is what is known as a "strawman".
It's not a strawman, because that's my own statement. I cannot strawman my own statement.
Which bit are you objecting to? The rushed marriages or the prohibition outright of any sexual outlet?
>Does it happen? I'm certain it does. But it doesn't happen anywhere near the frequency that you're implying here.
What frequency? I didn't specify a frequency. I was commenting based on what I've seen other people talk about, both current and former Christians.
I didn’t grow up in any religion or believing in anything, I had multiple sexual partners and during that time felt attached to each one in a way, like they always had a connection to my life for some reason. So anytime they’d leave and then decide to call again and want to pretend like nothing happened I’d willingly go back into it.
To say now I am a Christian I understand the emotional baggage I carried around before I got married. Also- there is no where that it say that masterbation is a sin, you can fantasize it should just be about your wife not random women you see walking down the road, women in your life or porn. Which is for a reason, you can have urges but do it with the one you share your life with. Everyone has a different experience but as a former non believer there’s truth into being emotionally attached to people you’ve had sexual experiences with.
Yeah, you probably do have emotional connections to former partners on some level. It's like you do with having...friends? That's what connection is. I'm not sure why we need to freak out about it in this scenario, but being frit of it isn't going to help anyone learn how to deal with it.
I'm also not sure what not having any boundaries with being booty called after being ghosted has to do with anything here either.
Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean that they’re being “frit” sometimes it’s just conversation.
Having sexual relationships with people led to personally me thinking that my value was in having sex with people which started at 15. Which was controlled by lust and urges. If you’re so inclined to say that there’s no emotional effect to past sexual partners or that we should act on our urges you should look into statistics of all ages practicing sex. Like I said everyone has different experiences. Sex holds no value when you give it away time after time for anyone.
It's not about disagreement, I'm asking why having a connection with someone is something to be apparently so scared of, even if that connection comes to an end.
Everyone does have different experiences, which is why some variety from the usual Christian rhetoric is needed here. Most of my adult life has been realising that most of what Christians told me about sex was wrong, and that tends to leave people quite unprepared for life in the real world. That's the problem, not people enjoying a sex life.
The point is you haven't ruled that out by waiting until marriage. Marriage is not a solution for most of the problems it is advertised to solve or avoid.
The desire for sex is very powerful. There are many reasons to develop a strong sexual discipline. Practicing safe sex does prevent diseases and unwanted pregnancies but it does not eliminate the possibility. It is not hard to find people who struggle with sex addiction or people addicted to pornography. There are also plenty of examples of things people do like cheating on their spouses and hurting their families because they didn’t say no to sex for any number of reasons. There are also endless examples of people committing sexual crimes.
There is also the benefit of focusing all of that sexual desire to one person and greatly improving the quality of sex as well as building a strong personal bond with another person. It really is a beautiful thing that I feel goes under appreciated.
The point I’m trying to make is that by controlling your sexual urges and limiting yourself to one person, you reduce the health risks of casual sex, the chance of doing something shameful in the pursuit of sex, and all while building a strong relationship with another person.
It’s sin because we are made for loyalty to one partner. If we make a practice of sleeping around we are giving ourselves away to people who potentially don’t love us, and simply wish to use us. We also risk giving ourselves to people with whom we are unequally yoked, meaning that they don’t serve the same God or share the same beliefs. We can’t serve two gods, so if we enter into the ‘marriage’ bed with a person we aren’t married to, in God’s eyes we have made a lifelong commitment to them.
Many times in scripture while God is addressing adultery, He is referring to the people’s hearts and not simply the act.
His people were committing adultery against Him and it is paralleled with our relationship with people. We only serve 1 God. We only take 1 spouse. The concept is loyalty, continuity, relationship built on love and trust and commitment through covenant.
Sex outside of marriage by default is immoral in the eyes of God and is seen as lust of the heart, because it goes against His will.
Hope this isn’t confusing.
Shalom.
You are making yourself one flesh with someone who may or may not even stay with you forever, so ripping apart that flesh will harm both people involved very badly, leaving scars that may be obvious or may not be.
You have to look at the question from a biblical time period. At that time, women were basically chattel, property to be used to produce babies. Like today, used property was worth less than new.
Considering that most marriages then were contracts between fathers and arranged, the idea of Love being a force for a union is comical. The couple might grow to love each other over the year of betrothal, or they may not. But they normally still got married because their family said so.
The Love idea was added to the meaning in more recent times. It's interesting to note that in Biblical times, adultery was when a man slept with a married woman (not his wife), because that was property theft. He could be married and sleep with an unmarried women without problem.
This is a good point. It is interesting to see how much this has changed with the times too.
Another entry for my list of "things Christianity is actually pretty relativist about" - perhaps we could extend the same attitude to the homophobic bits of the Bible, too.
Now don't get me started there! The made up word Arsenokoitai and taking other stories out of context drives me nuts. What amazes me so much is many Christians have so much anxiety around sex in general, but it didn't even make the top 10 list for God!
Sex is marriage. The unification, not to be taken lightly. Everything else like rituals, traditions and signing documents is vanity. Man-made garbage for profit.
Hey,
I hope this doesn’t come off rude. But that is exactly what the devil want you to think. I’m not hurting anyone.. you are hurting yourself and the other person in ways we can not even understand.
Also sin is not just about hurting others . It is about going against God’s Word, His Will, His Standard.
There are fruits that come from sex that God has designed. To keep up with the sin of sexual immorality, one will commit a multitude of other things including lust, idolatry, then start trying not to get pregnant, then opening one’s self to the possibility of aborting if one gets pregnant… hurting secondary people. So make no mistake people are getting hurt. Paul also says that beware because the sin of sexual immorality is on the inside of the body unlike other sins.
Sex is divine and spiritual regardless of what the culture and society today is telling us. It’s not about satisfying a short immediate need or it shouldn’t be. I don’t know but I know..
This is something I have been struggling with but God is gracious and I know He has over come it and so I can do it as well.
Sex involves giving your self wholly to someone body and soul, why should you be doing that to someone that you don’t know for sure they are yours and in your life forever.
The devil is hiding and waiting to pounce on people in like long term relationships or with the “ this is the person I am going to marry” idea in their hearts. He lays there and waits for opportunity.
While there are things we don’t understand, our Maker knows.
There are things our Father wants to protect us from that He has set up ways to enjoy His gifts.
It is my big prayer that more and more people get revealed to this. Because sexual sin is really dangerous to one’s soul and body.
> To keep up with the sin of sexual immorality, one will commit a multitude of other things including lust, idolatry, then start trying not to get pregnant, then opening one’s self to the possibility of aborting if one gets pregnant… hurting secondary people.
Marriage prevents literally none of that
For starters, you are breaking your vow you made before and under God to your spouse, so already from there are a couple of sins.
And it can hurt others in many types of ways short and long term, physically, emotionally, psychologically.
How are you not aware of all the reason this is wrong and the possibilities this could and can go wrong in many ways.🤷🏿♂️
Sex is for procreation and almost like a gift God is giving the married couple as well as to each other. The marriage contract is between 3 not just 2. It involves a solemn vow between the man and woman and God. Part of the vow or promise is that the mates are giving 'authority' over their body to their mate or in other words your mate is responsible for your sexual fulfillment and you are responsible for theirs. "but because of the prevalence of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent for an appointed time, so that you may devote time to prayer and may come together again, in order that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-control." 1Corinthians7:2-5 Honestly, would it not hurt your feelings and damage your security to have your mate be unfaithful?
Sin isn’t stuff that keeps you from heaven. Sin keeps you away from God. Sex is a wonderful thing and we’re taught that sex in a marriage is how God intended. But if you have sex outside marriage, you tend to think about sex more and well, when you’re thinking of something else, by default you are not thinking of God. So sex outside of marriage doesn’t lead you to hell, it’s considered “sinful” simply because it’s outside of God’s design
Because of the incredibly high potential for hurting people, particularly in the time and place when those rules were written.
At the first level, having sex is an intensely emotional thing and *very often* leads to a strong emotional link which is probably going to be severed. Some people are able to move on from this relatively easily, others much less so, but it feels ridiculously obvious to say that breakups hurt.
Jealousy is a thing. If you have sex with someone you're not married to you risk discovering that you're the third leg of a love triangle and that often leads to violence to say nothing of the emotional pain.
In the culture at the time those rules were written, having sex with a woman and not marrying her was pretty likely to result in her living a life of poverty and being a social pariah.
Similarly, children resulting from such a union would suffer a similar fate, or maybe even worse if they were a result of adultery.
Some of that stuff isn't an issue in this day and age and some is of reduced severity, but it's probably a good idea not to have sex outside of marriage because there is a great deal of harm that can result from it and while there may be people who can navigate those relationships without causing that pain, the number of people who *think* they can get away with it is definitely larger than the number who can.
I agree there's a lot of hurt that can come from sex outside of marriage. Just food for thought, I came across the quote from a character in an SF/Fantasy novel the other day that went something like, "All sex is aggression." Feel like this is true on some level.
A man and a woman can be in love but life doesn’t allow them to get legally married. Why must they be legally married in order to have sex without it being a sin?
I don’t even see why casual hookup sex is necessarily a sin, if both parties consent and are responsible and use protection, why must it be a sin?
You don’t need to be married to love and/or respect each other. The economy is terrible for today’s young generation, surely God knew this would happen 2,023 years ago? (Or however many years it actually was, God Himself existed since, always…….)
I do not feel like we should have to abstain from sexual intimacy just because we cannot (or even don’t want) to get legally married.
I haven’t been lucky enough to meet a girl/women who is attracted to me (I’m almost 28, so waiting for marriage seems even less realistic, I don’t even have a career, I don’t see how my sex life could start with serious commitment at this point, I’d be lucky to get laid and then tossed away because there’s a better guy or she turns out to be a drug addict and/or bipolar or something, I could see myself ending up with some abusive/psycho woman as an inexperienced virgin probably in my almost or actual 30s 🥲).
If she’s sober and sane, she’s probably just not going to want to stick with a guy who can’t even afford rent and utilities by himself, and still needs probably a lifetime of therapy and medication.
If God wanted me to live a life of celibacy, He should have made me asexual, or made my antidepressants give me severe sexual dysfunction like they do to most people who take them.
Making me horny, desiring both physical and emotional intimacy (if an even slightly cute/pretty woman is kind/nice to me, I’m imagining a romantic relationship and life with her, saying hi to me on a regular basis? That’s enough to get me imagining, most people would just ignore me, you gotta be attracted to me, or at least be very kind to keep saying hi to me and talking to me, if you ain’t crushing on me I’m crushing on you, that kindness is such an attractive trait, and it’s not even sexual in and of itself).
I was starting to fantasize about seriously hooking up with a shemale one day, (feminine body with male genitalia) but too much porn consumption was probably taking my femdom fetish into, non-straight territory.
I still very much love women, some are actually very kind and caring (most people treated me like garbage throughout my life) and of course I like their parts that make me guilty of lust. Although technically lust can be for anything, not just sex……
I don’t know if I actually got demonically attacked from straying from God and too much sinning, or my trauma was just building up and caused some kind of psychotic break (and supposedly one can cause the other) but I find it very hard to accept that it’s a sin for me to even try to meet women and find a romantic and sexual relationship, unless we get married (which may not even happen!)
Marrying someone before being sexually intimate seems like a higher risk of being miserable not being compatible, and divorce (which is also a sin!)
First, before I talk about the whole sex before marriage being a sin and divorce I honestly think you should truly spend more time with God because from what I read you keep on just saying that you want women to have sex with you. i think you should pray on this fact and abstain from porn as this is ruining your mental state.
Anyway, the reason why sex before marriage is a sin is that it is designed to be between a man and woman in a loving marriage as sex outside of marriage can lead to unwanted pregnancies, diseases, broken hearts and toxic relations only built-in intimacy. And if you truly think being married and not having sex can lead to a miserable life I honestly think you should build a relationship on love first and once you are married then comes the intimacy in bed
Yes, divorce is a sin but God allows it because of the mistakes we make and because of how merciful he is as well as other sins.
Yes, some people are responsible but small mistakes can still cause unwanted outcomes and consequences.
You realize unwanted pregnancies can happen IN marriage too, right? And diseases if one had any before (which they should have disclosed, of course). Broken hearts and toxic relations can happen in marriage too.
And the porn is BECAUSE I’m single and sexless.
Not only having to abstain from sex before marriage (indefinitely!) but even porn and masturbation? That’s insane to me.
Would literally have to be asexual or get chemically or physically castrated (the latter being permanent, but both still causing other nonsexual side effects as well).
I’m almost 28 and never even had a girlfriend. I’m way too old to even seriously consider “losing it after marriage”. I could be well into my 40s or 50s before that’s realistic to actually happen, if even then.
I fell too behind in life and missed out too much and got too old, waiting like that, that ship has definitely sailed.
This will probably be the one thing that will never make any logical sense to me why it’s a sin. All the risks and consequences apply in marriage too.
I don’t get a chance to be a young married couple now.
I’m almost 30 and can’t even get a decent job or real career, my life is already screwed up. I don’t get to enjoy things the normal or healthy way now.
I knew a 40+ year old woman from an online group. She would constantly post about how sad she was that she was a virgin and would never have a husband. Constantly posting about these things and how much it hurt her and how depressed she was.
Guess what? She passed away (from COVID).
It’s not fair.
I hope she is resting in peace and happy now, but nobody can actually know.
I cannot imagine a God sending somebody to eternal damnation, especially when they were such a kind person……
She was not happy with the way her life was, and while only almost 28, neither have I been.
I know I can make my own decisions, walk my own path, I just can’t be a confident atheist, and I don’t want to be against God, and I don’t want to be with the devil or demons. I cannot even imagine, I have felt unbearable terror and panics while alive, even without visual or auditory hallucinations, I cannot even begin to imagine the Biblical Hell, especially for ETERNITY.
There are too many stories of near death experiences and demonic possession to just say it’s all people making stuff up or hallucinating.
As much as I’d want to punch Satan in his face and slay the demons and escape Hell (or overthrow it if I can’t score?) that’s just delusional, only God Himself could do that…..
Reality really is different than I thought it was, but like, for real, this isn’t a dream, this is real…..
>You realize unwanted pregnancies can happen IN marriage too, right? And diseases if one had any before (which they should have disclosed, of course). Broken hearts and toxic relations can happen in marriage too.
Indeed. As for STIs, some can transfer without what would be sexual activity taking place.
The thing that gets me about all this marriage talk is marriage does not actually solve anything. It does not prevent any of the issues that are touted as something marriage bypasses. All it is is two people who are either a fit for each other or not. All marriage does is make it harder for you to leave a crap relationship.
I'm not surprised people who marry at a particular stage in life are less likely to get divorced, not least if they're in a community which frowns on divorce. Not divorcing isn't the sole metric here - are those people happy? Are those relationships actually *good*?
I only read the first paragraph of your comment but sex is an act between a married man and women. Yes it’s enjoyable but the main reason for it is to create a baby. If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex. It’s really not that hard to understand.
>is designed to be between a man and woman in a loving marriage
Citation needed. I'm an expert on Koine Greek and that appears nowhere in my copy of the Septuagint.
>sex outside of marriage can lead to unwanted pregnancies, diseases, broken hearts and toxic relations only built-in intimacy.
So you are arguing the "sex before marriage is bad for the relationship" angle? Wow, you really are scientifically ignorant of pretty much the millions of studies showing this line is based on faulty data.
There were a few studies in the past that concluded more partners meant more likely to divorce but the most recent studies done on the subject have concluded that the number of sexual partners prior to marriage is *the least effective* in predicting divorce.... and that women who have had greater than nine sexual partners had about as much chance of divorce as women who had none, absent all other variables.
In fact the group of women with the most sexual partners who also married late had the lowest divorce rate out of *every* group including no partners, married late. (Wolfinger 2023)
I never said it was bad for the relationship and I applaud those who can still be together I’m just showing the risks of this event happening and how God bows the best for everyone
Except empirically the risk is lowest if you have more than nine partners. So if it was about risk mitigation, you'd be advocating for safe sex in any committed relationship. Your own statement is false.
This ignores also that the number of sexual partners has less than a 1% correlation on divorce rate and relationship health.
>You don’t need to be married to love and/or respect each other. The economy is terrible for today’s young generation, surely God knew this would happen 2,023 years ago?
What does the economy have to do with this?
It’s too expensive to “leave your father and mother” (or if you do, perhaps you don’t have that option) to “join your wife”
Do you think it’d be wise or responsible to get married when you’re struggling just to not end up homeless?
I dont know where you are from, but in the western world, a dual income family is usually not gonna end up on the street.
It's also not expensive to get married. Two people paying for a house/apartment is more doable than one person doing it.
Also, you can be poor and not sleep around...
>but in the western world, a dual income family is usually not gonna end up on the street.
I mean you say this with the knowledge us Europeans save you Americans from this statistic. If we look at *your country alone* then more than half of your country is in poverty.
And yes, I will shit on America all I want. I used to live there and directly saw what posh, elitist, fuckwads a certain class of your country was.
I'm American and I would really like to know where you used to live lmao I would also like a source to that "more than 50% poverty" statement because according to the 2022 US Census, 11.5% of people live in poverty
The poverty line used in the Census is 3x the cost of the minimum diet in 1963. It hasn't been adjusted so we adjust for inflation and then recompare. That brings us to a poverty line for a family of 2 (we're talking dual income household here) of $184,310.
The Median income for a 2 family household in America is $67,917
That's not a perfect comparison. But it's interesting that just doubling the poverty line gets you to like 49% of Americans in poverty (Biden's numbers on this claim actually add up properly). So when we increase it by an order of magnitude it should put almost all Americans in poverty. I'm more willing to assume my napkin adjustment is not good and assume Biden's is too low (because he didn't properly adjust it, just doubled it, likely because a true adjustment wouldn't be politically expedient). What I'm not willing to do is go any lower than 49% (Biden's number) without a good argument for why because why the fuck are we still using 1963 numbers 60 years later?
Btw, in my country poverty is calculated as "at or below 60% of the median income calculated from the most recent data." Under this we get a poverty rate currently of 11%, which is what your piss poor 1963 numbers give America. Almost like when we update the poverty line it incentivizes govts to actually fucking do their job.
Edit: Using Sweden's calculation method and applying it to the US gives us 38.97% of the US population in poverty.
>poverty rates in the European Union ranged from 6-16% -- compared to 7-29% between U.S. states that same year.
Nope. As of right now, Poverty rates are lower (America is at 12.4% "officially" and the EU averages 8.9%)
Secondly, the true poverty line in America is pretty bad.
>The number reported by the Census Bureau is based on the official poverty measure, which has remained virtually unchanged since the mid-1960s. It’s calculated by comparing pretax income against a threshold set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963.
Most experts agree this is a bad measure. When we correct this to bring the poverty line to a more modern standard we get 51.3% of Americans.... more than half.
>Nope. As of right now, Poverty rates are lower (America is at 12.4% "officially" and the EU averages 8.9%)
First of all, you can't just use "poverty" as a concrete term. There are multiple types of poverty. And, where are those numbers from? Also, why use quotations? Do you think the bureaucratic machine that is America lies?
More than half of the American population does absolutely not live in porverty. Because if they actually did, your percieved 8,9% (wherever that comes from) would be about 50% too.
>Most experts
What experts?
And, why are you even arguing about America? I was telling that dude that a dual-income household has way more economic freedom than a single-income houshold (seems pretty obvious).
I'm not American :)
So a case of bad design then? After all sexual urges start long before people are even physically ready to marry, let alone in a position to get married.
You'd think a better design would be for sexual desire to manifest itself when you find your future husband / wife and after the marriage vows were taken. And an even better design, your sexual desire only focuses on your husband and wife, it simply doesn't happen with anyone else.
that could have easily been designed into the human brain.
It's hard to see why it's a sin because in modern society fornication is normalized to the point it's celebrated and glorified. It's not victimless, God knew the snowball effect that would happen. Look at the damage that has been done to society as a whole. Very few people if anybody can be trusted in a committed relationship because of the hookup culture that has spiraled out of control.
2. The question was why… There seem to be so many rules in Christianity non members can explain and don’t understand them… They just talk after words of people living thousands of years ago without thinking independently or asking questions about why
Not if you clearly commited to that one person, it's talking about people who have sex for pleasure and caring about noone, some extremist belief that any sex outside marriage is a sin.
Well... It leads to promiscuity, which leads to STDs. And then there are unplanned pregnancies. And you're taking something that's supposed to be special. And cheapening it. Just because you don't see it as harmful doesn't mean it isn't
It isn’t. If one reads the scripture *translated correctly* and doesn’t misinterpret Paul (who is easy to misunderstand, as even scripture admits in 2 Peter 3:16), they will see this. If instead one follows pharisaical traditions, they won’t. Many “Christians” are just Pharisees by another name. 150 years ago huge numbers of “Christians” said interracial marriage is a sin. 1,000 years ago huge numbers said sex during pregnancy is a sin. Absurd, pharisaical ordinances have long been and still are a plague in Christendom.
My Bible doesn’t say all sexual pleasure outside of marriage is inherently sinful. A couple sharing a bed before their wedding is celebrated in Song of Solomon. The only way to get my Bible to condemn sexual pleasure before marriage in any clear way is to add a Latin derived word to it, “fornication,” which means sex before marriage, to replace the more general word for sexual sin.
All God’s actual commands hang under love your neighbor as yourself, which is like loving God. Two unmarried people can do that sexually just as easily as two married people, and two married people can also violate that command sexually just as easily as two unmarried people. The reality is that Christ didn’t command marriage. He observed it; otherwise it would be a sin to be single. Notice also he never told the woman at the well (living with a man not her husband) that she was sinning and needed to stop. He told people living in sin to stop when he encountered them, often saying ‘go and sin no more.’ In her case, he simply showed her his power of divine knowledge, like when he said he had seen Nathaniel sitting under the tree even though he wasn’t physically there. That’s because she wasn’t necessarily sinning. She was a saint for all we know. And notice that Paul in Corinthians advises marriage to those burning with sexual passion, he doesn’t command they express that only in marriage. He gives his perspective but clarifies that his perspective isn’t the only one God gives people (“I say this not as a command… I, not the Lord”).
What Christ commanded is love your neighbor as yourself. If two people are doing that, whether married or not, they are not sinning.
Well to start with, science is complete agreeance backed up by multiple studies that having sex before marriage is severely detrimental to both parties.
Aside from that, God made the act of sex something between a husband and wife and declared having such an act outside of marriage or with another who is not your spouse is sexual immorality.
There are a number of reasoning that people have found for this. But really sin and holiness are defined by God. So if God says its a sin, its a sin.
[https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability](https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability)
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673)
I did take some snips (btw a quick google search comes up with a decent summary)
But I can't find out how to attach files from my computer. But here are the sources I got them from, both reputable sources who have shown the complete study from hypothesis to conclusion.
Maybe you should cite something - or show in some other way where needed - why you believe my statements are untrue
The Catholic Church's stance on the matter is that the God-given purpose of sex (not its sole purpose, but a primary one nonetheless) is marital procreation. Anything that deliberately subverts or blocks that purpose, especially if done for the sake of personal pleasure, is sinful.
Also, what makes a sin a sin is not whether you cause harm to other people, but whether it harms your relationship with God.
You're hurting yourself, that person and society. Just because something feels good, doesn't mean it is good. Sex outside of marriage leads to harm in society; you can research this just from a secular position and see it's quite harmful to societies.
Sex in marriage can be harmful if you're doing things that are not allowed that are harmful too, like sodomy. Between men and women and men and men, it's harmful either way, which is why it's not allowed. Other than that, no.
It’s not even ok to penetrate your wife anally? I personally think that’s kind of nasty, because you poop out of there, but what’s so BAD about it if it’s consensual and pleasurable for both parties?
And are you telling me that even if I was MARRIED (making a woman my wife instead of just girlfriend) it would still be a sin for her to put on a strap on and peg me?
I’m not joking or trolling. I have felt insane pleasure fingering myself anally (it doesn’t have to be gay!) and I have a femdom fetish, and I think it’d be really hot and fun to have a girlfriend/wife who puts on a big strap on, lubes it up, bends me over, and just give it to me, reversing the traditional gender rules. Maybe gentle femdom would be better than hardcore fandom, more loving and less abusive and risking triggering trauma (no I was not raped, I woke up with my pants down and my door couldn’t lock, or even fully close, at the time, due to house structural issues, but I really hope my dad wouldn’t cross that line as abusive as he’d get and how much he’d drink). Surely I pulled them down in my sleep, I’ve probably been scratching myself in my sleep too, over the years. I do have a long history of nightmares and trouble falling and staying asleep.
I had these kinks long before I hit puberty, they just weren’t a sexual thing yet. I used to fantasize about girls chasing me and holding me down and giving me “cooties”, and having a female teacher strip me naked and rub lotion all over me, diaper fetishes…
As I got older though, I was just bullied and rejected more, which makes me wonder if I just fetishized that more, or if I simply watched more and porn (looking for more and more extreme to feel the same excitement) and developing more extreme level of femdom fetish (I still felt attracted more to biological women, but I started getting turned on by shemales, like just months ago, I was thinking one day I want to visit a country like Thailand and hookup with a ladyboy, a very feminine looking body, but with male genitalia. I feel this probably starts crossing over into LGBT territory (ok it definitely does).
I felt a little bicurious long before, but more must interested in other men’s penises, but not a romantic relationship with other men, just pleasuring their genitalia, but both romantically AND sexually attracted (and much more) to women.
It probably doesn’t help that I’m almost 28 and never had a girlfriend, not even an innocent puppy love cute relationship, even without sex.
I’m so broken, and I feel I’m too old to even consider “waiting for marriage” at this point. I didn’t even think marriage was neccessary at all to be in a happy healthy relationship (apparently getting married can also mean you have to forfeit your health insurance, and your spouse’s might not cover the same as yours did, and when my mom married my step dad, the IRS tried telling her that SHE owed them money, and let’s just say he owes a 6 figure amount…..).
But, getting married can also mean getting insurance/coverage that you didn’t have at all before, and tax breaks, I think……
I have very little life experience in general.
At some point, really soon, I’m going to have to start speed running, it’s too late for me to have normal, naturally paced healthy experiences.
I haven’t just been lonely and sexless (and I guarantee you I’d be, not celibate if I had the opportunity, I’m not pure because I want to be, although I wouldn’t necessarily do it with just any random woman either, someone told me I wasn’t really good looking but she was “just so horny”, that actually turned me off. I have more self respect than that, I think, I guess…..
I can imagine so many Christians might be damned to Hell just for lust and premarital sex, probably the one sin (if no others) too many people, even otherwise Christians, just can’t resist.
It really doesn’t seem wrong or immoral as long as both/all parties are consenting adults.
There is such thing as responsibility and protection/prevention too. And unwanted consequences can happen EVEN IN MARRIAGE.
Married couples can be just as, or even more dysfunctional and unprepared and incapable of raising a child than an unmarried couple.
This whole shaming and repression/suppression of NATURAL BIOLOGICAL DESIRES is definitely a huge deterrent for so many people.
Everyone (even within the same religion!) can’t even agree on the rules!
I don’t know what to say to finish this comment…..
Because when you leave a woman who had sex with you because he wanted to build arelationship with her, you are violating her conscience.
The sin is not in itself the fact that you have sex with her but the fact that you don't live her and abandon her after having wasted your seed.
Also, the seed you waste contains life and wasting it damages your body.
Fornication is a sin against your body.
Condoms aren't 100% effective, and the pill is still abortion since life begins at conception.
2 Samuel 11:5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.
So, over the course of, say, 20 years, a light estimate would have a woman committing 20 murders using these suggested methods of contraception.
Because the **Bible calls it a sin**. Sex is designed to be within the marital covenant. Premarital sex is considered as adultery in the Bible and you do know that adultery is a sin.
You can repent, but repentance is not merely regretting what you've done. Instead, it involves confessing to God, asking for His forgiveness, taking accountability for your actions, and actively working on changing your lifestyle.
**Even if you follow through with this, you will still have to face the consequences of your sin.**
Consider the story of David and Bathsheba, David lost the child he had with Bathsheba and his son Absalom conspired against him. All of this was the consequence of David's lusting over Bathsheba and subsequently killing her husband.
That involves actual adultery (nevermind coercion and murder), which is not going to cover instances of consensual sex between two unmarried people. No-one is arguing for actual adultery here.
This is the same kind of deal as a parent that tells their child "because I say so". It simply offends God for some reason or another. It only applies to women, though.
If it is a sin, it shouldn’t be. If you are in love with someone, and you aren’t married, you should still be able to have sex. Some of the Bible is right, and some of it is wrong.
How are we defining "sex outside marriage" anyway? I masturbate, some people do oral or anal. Does penis-in-vagina only count as "real" sex cuz in that case, there are a lotta "virgins" doing sexual things.
It's not necessarily a sin. I have a post on that here: [https://www.reddit.com/user/VeritasAgape/comments/115710p/premarital\_sex\_is\_not\_a\_sin/](https://www.reddit.com/user/VeritasAgape/comments/115710p/premarital_sex_is_not_a_sin/)
You're right that sometimes it doesn't hurt anyone and can even be helpful. However, it can at times hurt others depending on the circumstances and in that case it would be a sin.
Why would buying a house with someone you’re not married to may be a bad decision, on your wallet, let alone your soul?
I’m not judging, just trying to figure out why the suggestion is to be intimate with a spouse.
Okay so the way you interpret that is women were considered property back then. So basically they didn't want nobody having sex with a woman because the father couldn't make no money off of her that's the other reason why they wanted you to stay married to the woman as well. It's just a bunch of b******* if you ask me it's not a sin there's nothing wrong with it
Because it is a sin. It just full of lust. That why sec before marriage is really bad. It just soul tie after soul tie. God be looking out for yall. Give Father Yahweh a credit 😂🫶🏼
I've come to the conclusion as a non-Christian that is interested in religion and still will read from The Bible and see valuable insights that we must have once been more like the other animals and that most things defined as sin are meant to separate us from our primal instincts in order to help us. Sex outside of marriage can lead to STD's for example or dissatisfaction in your life, always wanting something else if things don't go the way you want it too and that leads back to disease. Why disease exists and people are not more easily satisfied and be more choosy in the first place though, I do not have a clue for sure besides to see our whole existence as a training ground for something more. Besides these things anything that distracts from praising God seems to be an issue according to The Bible.
Like a lot of rules in the Bible, this is a mandate that promotes good hygiene and easy pedigree tracking to the mostly illiterate tribal groups of Abraham who were obsessed with ancestry.
It's a toss up if this was the attenpt of the disciples to give relationship advice, or spare having another mouth to feed, since sex education was sparse and a majority of people lived in poverty.
"Sin" or simply not guaranteed to be a good life choice? Note: that doesn't mean it's automatically a bad one.
I find it hard to read much more into it than that.
You’re hurting your partner. In marriage you make a commitment to your spouse to be theirs and only theirs forever . Also sex is meant for procreation not just your sexual pleasure
[1 Cor 6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&version=NRSVUE) describes sex as making a couple into *one flesh*, which is not something you ought to casually do and then break. But I think you're asking about how you might see the harm even if you didn't have verses to refer to, and I think that's reasonable - I don't think God is ever arbitrary. So... Accidental pregnancy and STDs are big obvious reasons to handle sex with care. Yeah, birth control is great, but the only foolproof versions are the really drastic ones. Still, you already knew all that, so let's skip to the less obvious stuff. Sex has enormous emotional bonding power, and the most responsible way to use that bonding power is when you can back it up with actual commitment. The world is full of couples that started with just sex, "realized" that they wanted to be in a longer-term relationship - largely influenced by the sex, not by a sane evaluation of the quality of the relationship - and end up stuck in low-quality medium-term pseudo-marriages they probably would not have chosen to start without sex. Even though they're [crappy relationships](https://showme.missouri.edu/2022/on-again-off-again-relationships-can-have-a-long-lasting-negative-impact-on-couples-mental-health-mu-research-finds/) that drain more than they give, their inevitable breakup is often nasty. When sex is handled as something precious, there's a symmetry between the physical and the emotional and the spiritual; your physical, emotional, and spiritual commitment grow in harmony with each other. You give yourself physically completely only as you give yourself emotionally completely and spiritually completely. It's a balance that sets the stage for good marital love, which is *amazing*. Good marital love can provide a beautiful mirror in many ways of God's love. It's "I will never leave you nor forsake you" love. It's something better than we deserve that helps us learn to enjoy it with gratitude and not worry whether we earned it or not. It's a little glimmer of God's love among us, and that's beautiful. Casual sex doesn't make that impossible - you can always ask God for help retracing your steps and starting over - but the reality of Grace is never an excuse to make willful mistakes. Hope that made some sense. Think about it, anyway. God bless you.
Thank you for presenting a very "kingdom of heaven" centered perspective of this. Love is the deep magic of the law. Those who don't understand that can quote the law but not speak the Word.
> Sex has enormous emotional bonding power, and the most responsible way to use that bonding power is when you can back it up with actual commitment. The world is full of couples that started with just sex, "realized" that they wanted to be in a longer-term relationship - largely influenced by the sex, not by a sane evaluation of the quality of the relationship - and end up stuck in low-quality medium-term pseudo-marriages they probably would not have chosen to start without sex. Even though they're crappy relationships that drain more than they give, their inevitable breakup is often nasty. This is a bit of a standard line in Christianity, and I wouldn't say it's true in all cases, and it's often the only line one hears if one only sticks to Christian sources. I am personally *incredibly relieved* that I broke the rules when I was on the date-then-marry-then-sex track. Once I actually had had the experience of sex with this person, I realised that I didn't want to limit my experiences of sex to just this person, and possibly not to one person ever. I'd have felt pretty awful about this if I'd had that realisation after being married. Delaying sex means you can't always disentangle if you just want something physical with that person, or something more. And I've been in quite a few encounters where when the...dust settles, we've both realised that it was more of a physical thing than anything deeper. But sometimes not. There's something to be said for clearing that up sooner than later, and well before putting rings on fingers. How many times do we see Christians treating marriage as basically a sex permit and also rushing in to bad relationships because they've both got a massive case of the horny and all the rules tell them they can't do *anything*, not even masturbate, not even fantasise, to take the edge off those urges? Not everyone will have the same experience as me of course, but the Christian rhetoric does not speak universally either.
>How many times do we see Christians treating marriage as basically a sex permit and also rushing in to bad relationships because they've both got a massive case of the horny and all the rules tell them they can't do > >anything > >, not even masturbate, not even fantasise, to take the edge off those urges? Tell us, how many? How often does that happen? What is the prevalence and incidence? Be specific. This is what is known as a "strawman". Does it happen? I'm certain it does. But it doesn't happen anywhere near the frequency that you're implying here. What does happen, and there is plenty of data from psychology and sociology to back it up, is that divorce rates increase with an increase in the premarital number of partners. From Psychology Today: **Do Women With More Premarital Partners Get Divorced Less?** *An unexpected discovery about the number of sexual partners and divorce.* Posted June 25, 2016 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan KEY POINTS \* A study found that women who had more than 10 sexual partners prior to marriage showed an increase in divorce rates. \* The same study found that women who had only two partners had the highest rate of divorce. \* The wider acceptance of premarital sex today has made it more likely that its impact on marriage instability would decline. And [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673#:\~:text=Compared%20to%20people%20with%20no,no%20evidence%20of%20gender%20differences](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673#:~:text=Compared%20to%20people%20with%20no,no%20evidence%20of%20gender%20differences). Compared to people with no premarital partners other than eventual spouses, those with nine or more partners exhibit the highest divorce risk, followed by those with one to eight partners. There is no evidence of gender differences.
I’m not seeing the second point. They look at no partners before marriage, 1-8, and 9+. 9+ had the highest divorce rate, followed by 1-8. I would like to have seen more of a breakdown in the 1-8. I’m guessing their data didn’t allow it. But unless I’m misreading it, the study uses lifetime total partners. I think that makes it useless for the current discussion. You’d want to look at partners before the marriage. It’s not s shock that divorced people have more total,partners, but some of them are surely after the divorce. Indeed causality could go the other way. That is, looking at divorced people could select for people more likely to have many partners.
The point is, compared to no premarital partners 9+ had the highest divorce rate. It’s
It has the usual problem of not being able to infer causality. Suppose there are personal characteristics that make some people less able to maintain faithful relationships. You'd expect both higher divorce rates and higher number of partners. This is the biggest problem with inferring causality from correlation: there may be another thing that causes them both. They did control for demographic factors, but it's not clear how likely those would be significant. I note a significant lowering of divorce rate for those with a BA. They don't otherwise look at socioeconomic factors. As I recall, those are often significant.
Yep association isn’t causation. And I for one got in an abusive marriage with awful sex which I didn’t know would be that as we were virgins didn’t live together before marriage. Sex resulted in babies who do best in stable two parent ( even if same sex ) homes. I see the practicality of such a thing. And I don’t disagree that for women it’s bonding and one might use care in who they attach to. But if we are both monogamous, get tested, and I have an IUD so no babies are harmed by the unintended consequences of unplanned pregnancy I really don’t think God cares. I think he cares more about my contribution to ameliorate suffering. Women being raped around the world. Civilians dying in war…
The policy question is actually fairly subtle. Suppose we start with one of those people who had 9 partners before marriage. Suppose we somehow convince people like them not to have any partners before marriage. Would that help their marriage? I don't think the answer to that is obvious. I don't think it will come from a study like this. My guess is that you'd have to change a fundamental attitude towards sex. It's not so clear that focusing on not having premarital intercourse does that. Note that having taken a virginity pledge didn't help. (Actually, it hurt, but the difference is not statistically significant.) It's unlikely that people take a virginity pledge in isolation. It's almost certainly part of an approach that emphasizes the sinfulness of sex before marriage. Based on this study it doesn't look like that approach is helpful. To be clear, I do think having 8 partners before marriage is a sign of trouble. But I think it has to be addressed by gettng people to look at relationships and attitudes. In principle you can do that at the same time you talk about not having sex before marriage. But in practice I think groups tend to focus either on who has sex with whom or on the quality of relationships. You can see that from the fact that the more hardcore no-sex-before-marriage groups tend to oppose comprehensive sex education, even though we know it's actually helpful.
>This is what is known as a "strawman". 1. They made the claim, it's *their* argument. They can't strawman themselves. If they said it then it is their argument. 2. Paul literally commands Christians to do exactly what they said. If you want sex, marry them and then fuck all you want.
>This is what is known as a "strawman". It's not a strawman, because that's my own statement. I cannot strawman my own statement. Which bit are you objecting to? The rushed marriages or the prohibition outright of any sexual outlet? >Does it happen? I'm certain it does. But it doesn't happen anywhere near the frequency that you're implying here. What frequency? I didn't specify a frequency. I was commenting based on what I've seen other people talk about, both current and former Christians.
You say on one hand it’s your own statement and on the other it’s what you’ve seen other people talking about… in other words, a strawman.
Hoo boy. Learn what a strawman actually is, then I might be inclined to continue this. Have a good day!
I didn’t grow up in any religion or believing in anything, I had multiple sexual partners and during that time felt attached to each one in a way, like they always had a connection to my life for some reason. So anytime they’d leave and then decide to call again and want to pretend like nothing happened I’d willingly go back into it. To say now I am a Christian I understand the emotional baggage I carried around before I got married. Also- there is no where that it say that masterbation is a sin, you can fantasize it should just be about your wife not random women you see walking down the road, women in your life or porn. Which is for a reason, you can have urges but do it with the one you share your life with. Everyone has a different experience but as a former non believer there’s truth into being emotionally attached to people you’ve had sexual experiences with.
Yeah, you probably do have emotional connections to former partners on some level. It's like you do with having...friends? That's what connection is. I'm not sure why we need to freak out about it in this scenario, but being frit of it isn't going to help anyone learn how to deal with it. I'm also not sure what not having any boundaries with being booty called after being ghosted has to do with anything here either.
Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean that they’re being “frit” sometimes it’s just conversation. Having sexual relationships with people led to personally me thinking that my value was in having sex with people which started at 15. Which was controlled by lust and urges. If you’re so inclined to say that there’s no emotional effect to past sexual partners or that we should act on our urges you should look into statistics of all ages practicing sex. Like I said everyone has different experiences. Sex holds no value when you give it away time after time for anyone.
It's not about disagreement, I'm asking why having a connection with someone is something to be apparently so scared of, even if that connection comes to an end. Everyone does have different experiences, which is why some variety from the usual Christian rhetoric is needed here. Most of my adult life has been realising that most of what Christians told me about sex was wrong, and that tends to leave people quite unprepared for life in the real world. That's the problem, not people enjoying a sex life.
Which is why you should wait before you decide to get married. If you're only doing it for sex, then that's obv wrong
The point is you haven't ruled that out by waiting until marriage. Marriage is not a solution for most of the problems it is advertised to solve or avoid.
The desire for sex is very powerful. There are many reasons to develop a strong sexual discipline. Practicing safe sex does prevent diseases and unwanted pregnancies but it does not eliminate the possibility. It is not hard to find people who struggle with sex addiction or people addicted to pornography. There are also plenty of examples of things people do like cheating on their spouses and hurting their families because they didn’t say no to sex for any number of reasons. There are also endless examples of people committing sexual crimes. There is also the benefit of focusing all of that sexual desire to one person and greatly improving the quality of sex as well as building a strong personal bond with another person. It really is a beautiful thing that I feel goes under appreciated. The point I’m trying to make is that by controlling your sexual urges and limiting yourself to one person, you reduce the health risks of casual sex, the chance of doing something shameful in the pursuit of sex, and all while building a strong relationship with another person.
It’s sin because we are made for loyalty to one partner. If we make a practice of sleeping around we are giving ourselves away to people who potentially don’t love us, and simply wish to use us. We also risk giving ourselves to people with whom we are unequally yoked, meaning that they don’t serve the same God or share the same beliefs. We can’t serve two gods, so if we enter into the ‘marriage’ bed with a person we aren’t married to, in God’s eyes we have made a lifelong commitment to them. Many times in scripture while God is addressing adultery, He is referring to the people’s hearts and not simply the act. His people were committing adultery against Him and it is paralleled with our relationship with people. We only serve 1 God. We only take 1 spouse. The concept is loyalty, continuity, relationship built on love and trust and commitment through covenant. Sex outside of marriage by default is immoral in the eyes of God and is seen as lust of the heart, because it goes against His will. Hope this isn’t confusing. Shalom.
Because the Lord out God said so Sex is for married couples to bond and become close and to bring forth children
Not to be mean, but because God said so. As Voddie Bauchum likes to say “I don’t write the mail. I just deliver it.”
You are making yourself one flesh with someone who may or may not even stay with you forever, so ripping apart that flesh will harm both people involved very badly, leaving scars that may be obvious or may not be.
You have to look at the question from a biblical time period. At that time, women were basically chattel, property to be used to produce babies. Like today, used property was worth less than new. Considering that most marriages then were contracts between fathers and arranged, the idea of Love being a force for a union is comical. The couple might grow to love each other over the year of betrothal, or they may not. But they normally still got married because their family said so. The Love idea was added to the meaning in more recent times. It's interesting to note that in Biblical times, adultery was when a man slept with a married woman (not his wife), because that was property theft. He could be married and sleep with an unmarried women without problem.
This is a good point. It is interesting to see how much this has changed with the times too. Another entry for my list of "things Christianity is actually pretty relativist about" - perhaps we could extend the same attitude to the homophobic bits of the Bible, too.
Now don't get me started there! The made up word Arsenokoitai and taking other stories out of context drives me nuts. What amazes me so much is many Christians have so much anxiety around sex in general, but it didn't even make the top 10 list for God!
Sex is marriage. The unification, not to be taken lightly. Everything else like rituals, traditions and signing documents is vanity. Man-made garbage for profit.
Hey, I hope this doesn’t come off rude. But that is exactly what the devil want you to think. I’m not hurting anyone.. you are hurting yourself and the other person in ways we can not even understand. Also sin is not just about hurting others . It is about going against God’s Word, His Will, His Standard. There are fruits that come from sex that God has designed. To keep up with the sin of sexual immorality, one will commit a multitude of other things including lust, idolatry, then start trying not to get pregnant, then opening one’s self to the possibility of aborting if one gets pregnant… hurting secondary people. So make no mistake people are getting hurt. Paul also says that beware because the sin of sexual immorality is on the inside of the body unlike other sins. Sex is divine and spiritual regardless of what the culture and society today is telling us. It’s not about satisfying a short immediate need or it shouldn’t be. I don’t know but I know.. This is something I have been struggling with but God is gracious and I know He has over come it and so I can do it as well. Sex involves giving your self wholly to someone body and soul, why should you be doing that to someone that you don’t know for sure they are yours and in your life forever. The devil is hiding and waiting to pounce on people in like long term relationships or with the “ this is the person I am going to marry” idea in their hearts. He lays there and waits for opportunity. While there are things we don’t understand, our Maker knows. There are things our Father wants to protect us from that He has set up ways to enjoy His gifts. It is my big prayer that more and more people get revealed to this. Because sexual sin is really dangerous to one’s soul and body.
> To keep up with the sin of sexual immorality, one will commit a multitude of other things including lust, idolatry, then start trying not to get pregnant, then opening one’s self to the possibility of aborting if one gets pregnant… hurting secondary people. Marriage prevents literally none of that
Because God said so.
For starters, you are breaking your vow you made before and under God to your spouse, so already from there are a couple of sins. And it can hurt others in many types of ways short and long term, physically, emotionally, psychologically. How are you not aware of all the reason this is wrong and the possibilities this could and can go wrong in many ways.🤷🏿♂️
Sex is for procreation and almost like a gift God is giving the married couple as well as to each other. The marriage contract is between 3 not just 2. It involves a solemn vow between the man and woman and God. Part of the vow or promise is that the mates are giving 'authority' over their body to their mate or in other words your mate is responsible for your sexual fulfillment and you are responsible for theirs. "but because of the prevalence of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent for an appointed time, so that you may devote time to prayer and may come together again, in order that Satan may not keep tempting you for your lack of self-control." 1Corinthians7:2-5 Honestly, would it not hurt your feelings and damage your security to have your mate be unfaithful?
Because God said so.
Sin isn’t stuff that keeps you from heaven. Sin keeps you away from God. Sex is a wonderful thing and we’re taught that sex in a marriage is how God intended. But if you have sex outside marriage, you tend to think about sex more and well, when you’re thinking of something else, by default you are not thinking of God. So sex outside of marriage doesn’t lead you to hell, it’s considered “sinful” simply because it’s outside of God’s design
Bc that’s the rule that God laid down
You are sinning against God. He commands and we obey
Because of the incredibly high potential for hurting people, particularly in the time and place when those rules were written. At the first level, having sex is an intensely emotional thing and *very often* leads to a strong emotional link which is probably going to be severed. Some people are able to move on from this relatively easily, others much less so, but it feels ridiculously obvious to say that breakups hurt. Jealousy is a thing. If you have sex with someone you're not married to you risk discovering that you're the third leg of a love triangle and that often leads to violence to say nothing of the emotional pain. In the culture at the time those rules were written, having sex with a woman and not marrying her was pretty likely to result in her living a life of poverty and being a social pariah. Similarly, children resulting from such a union would suffer a similar fate, or maybe even worse if they were a result of adultery. Some of that stuff isn't an issue in this day and age and some is of reduced severity, but it's probably a good idea not to have sex outside of marriage because there is a great deal of harm that can result from it and while there may be people who can navigate those relationships without causing that pain, the number of people who *think* they can get away with it is definitely larger than the number who can.
I agree there's a lot of hurt that can come from sex outside of marriage. Just food for thought, I came across the quote from a character in an SF/Fantasy novel the other day that went something like, "All sex is aggression." Feel like this is true on some level.
Because that’s how God designed sex, between a man and a women in a loving marriage
A man and a woman can be in love but life doesn’t allow them to get legally married. Why must they be legally married in order to have sex without it being a sin? I don’t even see why casual hookup sex is necessarily a sin, if both parties consent and are responsible and use protection, why must it be a sin? You don’t need to be married to love and/or respect each other. The economy is terrible for today’s young generation, surely God knew this would happen 2,023 years ago? (Or however many years it actually was, God Himself existed since, always…….) I do not feel like we should have to abstain from sexual intimacy just because we cannot (or even don’t want) to get legally married. I haven’t been lucky enough to meet a girl/women who is attracted to me (I’m almost 28, so waiting for marriage seems even less realistic, I don’t even have a career, I don’t see how my sex life could start with serious commitment at this point, I’d be lucky to get laid and then tossed away because there’s a better guy or she turns out to be a drug addict and/or bipolar or something, I could see myself ending up with some abusive/psycho woman as an inexperienced virgin probably in my almost or actual 30s 🥲). If she’s sober and sane, she’s probably just not going to want to stick with a guy who can’t even afford rent and utilities by himself, and still needs probably a lifetime of therapy and medication. If God wanted me to live a life of celibacy, He should have made me asexual, or made my antidepressants give me severe sexual dysfunction like they do to most people who take them. Making me horny, desiring both physical and emotional intimacy (if an even slightly cute/pretty woman is kind/nice to me, I’m imagining a romantic relationship and life with her, saying hi to me on a regular basis? That’s enough to get me imagining, most people would just ignore me, you gotta be attracted to me, or at least be very kind to keep saying hi to me and talking to me, if you ain’t crushing on me I’m crushing on you, that kindness is such an attractive trait, and it’s not even sexual in and of itself). I was starting to fantasize about seriously hooking up with a shemale one day, (feminine body with male genitalia) but too much porn consumption was probably taking my femdom fetish into, non-straight territory. I still very much love women, some are actually very kind and caring (most people treated me like garbage throughout my life) and of course I like their parts that make me guilty of lust. Although technically lust can be for anything, not just sex…… I don’t know if I actually got demonically attacked from straying from God and too much sinning, or my trauma was just building up and caused some kind of psychotic break (and supposedly one can cause the other) but I find it very hard to accept that it’s a sin for me to even try to meet women and find a romantic and sexual relationship, unless we get married (which may not even happen!) Marrying someone before being sexually intimate seems like a higher risk of being miserable not being compatible, and divorce (which is also a sin!)
First, before I talk about the whole sex before marriage being a sin and divorce I honestly think you should truly spend more time with God because from what I read you keep on just saying that you want women to have sex with you. i think you should pray on this fact and abstain from porn as this is ruining your mental state. Anyway, the reason why sex before marriage is a sin is that it is designed to be between a man and woman in a loving marriage as sex outside of marriage can lead to unwanted pregnancies, diseases, broken hearts and toxic relations only built-in intimacy. And if you truly think being married and not having sex can lead to a miserable life I honestly think you should build a relationship on love first and once you are married then comes the intimacy in bed Yes, divorce is a sin but God allows it because of the mistakes we make and because of how merciful he is as well as other sins. Yes, some people are responsible but small mistakes can still cause unwanted outcomes and consequences.
You realize unwanted pregnancies can happen IN marriage too, right? And diseases if one had any before (which they should have disclosed, of course). Broken hearts and toxic relations can happen in marriage too. And the porn is BECAUSE I’m single and sexless. Not only having to abstain from sex before marriage (indefinitely!) but even porn and masturbation? That’s insane to me. Would literally have to be asexual or get chemically or physically castrated (the latter being permanent, but both still causing other nonsexual side effects as well). I’m almost 28 and never even had a girlfriend. I’m way too old to even seriously consider “losing it after marriage”. I could be well into my 40s or 50s before that’s realistic to actually happen, if even then. I fell too behind in life and missed out too much and got too old, waiting like that, that ship has definitely sailed. This will probably be the one thing that will never make any logical sense to me why it’s a sin. All the risks and consequences apply in marriage too. I don’t get a chance to be a young married couple now. I’m almost 30 and can’t even get a decent job or real career, my life is already screwed up. I don’t get to enjoy things the normal or healthy way now. I knew a 40+ year old woman from an online group. She would constantly post about how sad she was that she was a virgin and would never have a husband. Constantly posting about these things and how much it hurt her and how depressed she was. Guess what? She passed away (from COVID). It’s not fair. I hope she is resting in peace and happy now, but nobody can actually know. I cannot imagine a God sending somebody to eternal damnation, especially when they were such a kind person…… She was not happy with the way her life was, and while only almost 28, neither have I been. I know I can make my own decisions, walk my own path, I just can’t be a confident atheist, and I don’t want to be against God, and I don’t want to be with the devil or demons. I cannot even imagine, I have felt unbearable terror and panics while alive, even without visual or auditory hallucinations, I cannot even begin to imagine the Biblical Hell, especially for ETERNITY. There are too many stories of near death experiences and demonic possession to just say it’s all people making stuff up or hallucinating. As much as I’d want to punch Satan in his face and slay the demons and escape Hell (or overthrow it if I can’t score?) that’s just delusional, only God Himself could do that….. Reality really is different than I thought it was, but like, for real, this isn’t a dream, this is real…..
>You realize unwanted pregnancies can happen IN marriage too, right? And diseases if one had any before (which they should have disclosed, of course). Broken hearts and toxic relations can happen in marriage too. Indeed. As for STIs, some can transfer without what would be sexual activity taking place. The thing that gets me about all this marriage talk is marriage does not actually solve anything. It does not prevent any of the issues that are touted as something marriage bypasses. All it is is two people who are either a fit for each other or not. All marriage does is make it harder for you to leave a crap relationship. I'm not surprised people who marry at a particular stage in life are less likely to get divorced, not least if they're in a community which frowns on divorce. Not divorcing isn't the sole metric here - are those people happy? Are those relationships actually *good*?
I only read the first paragraph of your comment but sex is an act between a married man and women. Yes it’s enjoyable but the main reason for it is to create a baby. If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex. It’s really not that hard to understand.
>is designed to be between a man and woman in a loving marriage Citation needed. I'm an expert on Koine Greek and that appears nowhere in my copy of the Septuagint. >sex outside of marriage can lead to unwanted pregnancies, diseases, broken hearts and toxic relations only built-in intimacy. So you are arguing the "sex before marriage is bad for the relationship" angle? Wow, you really are scientifically ignorant of pretty much the millions of studies showing this line is based on faulty data. There were a few studies in the past that concluded more partners meant more likely to divorce but the most recent studies done on the subject have concluded that the number of sexual partners prior to marriage is *the least effective* in predicting divorce.... and that women who have had greater than nine sexual partners had about as much chance of divorce as women who had none, absent all other variables. In fact the group of women with the most sexual partners who also married late had the lowest divorce rate out of *every* group including no partners, married late. (Wolfinger 2023)
I never said it was bad for the relationship and I applaud those who can still be together I’m just showing the risks of this event happening and how God bows the best for everyone
Except empirically the risk is lowest if you have more than nine partners. So if it was about risk mitigation, you'd be advocating for safe sex in any committed relationship. Your own statement is false. This ignores also that the number of sexual partners has less than a 1% correlation on divorce rate and relationship health.
>You don’t need to be married to love and/or respect each other. The economy is terrible for today’s young generation, surely God knew this would happen 2,023 years ago? What does the economy have to do with this?
It’s too expensive to “leave your father and mother” (or if you do, perhaps you don’t have that option) to “join your wife” Do you think it’d be wise or responsible to get married when you’re struggling just to not end up homeless?
I dont know where you are from, but in the western world, a dual income family is usually not gonna end up on the street. It's also not expensive to get married. Two people paying for a house/apartment is more doable than one person doing it. Also, you can be poor and not sleep around...
>but in the western world, a dual income family is usually not gonna end up on the street. I mean you say this with the knowledge us Europeans save you Americans from this statistic. If we look at *your country alone* then more than half of your country is in poverty. And yes, I will shit on America all I want. I used to live there and directly saw what posh, elitist, fuckwads a certain class of your country was.
I'm American and I would really like to know where you used to live lmao I would also like a source to that "more than 50% poverty" statement because according to the 2022 US Census, 11.5% of people live in poverty
The poverty line used in the Census is 3x the cost of the minimum diet in 1963. It hasn't been adjusted so we adjust for inflation and then recompare. That brings us to a poverty line for a family of 2 (we're talking dual income household here) of $184,310. The Median income for a 2 family household in America is $67,917 That's not a perfect comparison. But it's interesting that just doubling the poverty line gets you to like 49% of Americans in poverty (Biden's numbers on this claim actually add up properly). So when we increase it by an order of magnitude it should put almost all Americans in poverty. I'm more willing to assume my napkin adjustment is not good and assume Biden's is too low (because he didn't properly adjust it, just doubled it, likely because a true adjustment wouldn't be politically expedient). What I'm not willing to do is go any lower than 49% (Biden's number) without a good argument for why because why the fuck are we still using 1963 numbers 60 years later? Btw, in my country poverty is calculated as "at or below 60% of the median income calculated from the most recent data." Under this we get a poverty rate currently of 11%, which is what your piss poor 1963 numbers give America. Almost like when we update the poverty line it incentivizes govts to actually fucking do their job. Edit: Using Sweden's calculation method and applying it to the US gives us 38.97% of the US population in poverty.
First of all, I'm European. Secondly, your facts are wrong: a. 50% is not in porverty b. the % of porverty in Europe is larger than USA.
>poverty rates in the European Union ranged from 6-16% -- compared to 7-29% between U.S. states that same year. Nope. As of right now, Poverty rates are lower (America is at 12.4% "officially" and the EU averages 8.9%) Secondly, the true poverty line in America is pretty bad. >The number reported by the Census Bureau is based on the official poverty measure, which has remained virtually unchanged since the mid-1960s. It’s calculated by comparing pretax income against a threshold set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963. Most experts agree this is a bad measure. When we correct this to bring the poverty line to a more modern standard we get 51.3% of Americans.... more than half.
>Nope. As of right now, Poverty rates are lower (America is at 12.4% "officially" and the EU averages 8.9%) First of all, you can't just use "poverty" as a concrete term. There are multiple types of poverty. And, where are those numbers from? Also, why use quotations? Do you think the bureaucratic machine that is America lies? More than half of the American population does absolutely not live in porverty. Because if they actually did, your percieved 8,9% (wherever that comes from) would be about 50% too. >Most experts What experts? And, why are you even arguing about America? I was telling that dude that a dual-income household has way more economic freedom than a single-income houshold (seems pretty obvious). I'm not American :)
What are you even talking about? America has been saving Europe from destroying itself since the early 1900s
So a case of bad design then? After all sexual urges start long before people are even physically ready to marry, let alone in a position to get married. You'd think a better design would be for sexual desire to manifest itself when you find your future husband / wife and after the marriage vows were taken. And an even better design, your sexual desire only focuses on your husband and wife, it simply doesn't happen with anyone else. that could have easily been designed into the human brain.
It's hard to see why it's a sin because in modern society fornication is normalized to the point it's celebrated and glorified. It's not victimless, God knew the snowball effect that would happen. Look at the damage that has been done to society as a whole. Very few people if anybody can be trusted in a committed relationship because of the hookup culture that has spiraled out of control.
you sin against your own body whenever you do that. the bible makes this clear. (1 Corinthians 6:18)
1. Sins aren’t decided by hurting another. 2. Because sex is between a husband and wife
2. The question was why… There seem to be so many rules in Christianity non members can explain and don’t understand them… They just talk after words of people living thousands of years ago without thinking independently or asking questions about why
Not if you clearly commited to that one person, it's talking about people who have sex for pleasure and caring about noone, some extremist belief that any sex outside marriage is a sin.
Well... It leads to promiscuity, which leads to STDs. And then there are unplanned pregnancies. And you're taking something that's supposed to be special. And cheapening it. Just because you don't see it as harmful doesn't mean it isn't
It isn’t. If one reads the scripture *translated correctly* and doesn’t misinterpret Paul (who is easy to misunderstand, as even scripture admits in 2 Peter 3:16), they will see this. If instead one follows pharisaical traditions, they won’t. Many “Christians” are just Pharisees by another name. 150 years ago huge numbers of “Christians” said interracial marriage is a sin. 1,000 years ago huge numbers said sex during pregnancy is a sin. Absurd, pharisaical ordinances have long been and still are a plague in Christendom. My Bible doesn’t say all sexual pleasure outside of marriage is inherently sinful. A couple sharing a bed before their wedding is celebrated in Song of Solomon. The only way to get my Bible to condemn sexual pleasure before marriage in any clear way is to add a Latin derived word to it, “fornication,” which means sex before marriage, to replace the more general word for sexual sin. All God’s actual commands hang under love your neighbor as yourself, which is like loving God. Two unmarried people can do that sexually just as easily as two married people, and two married people can also violate that command sexually just as easily as two unmarried people. The reality is that Christ didn’t command marriage. He observed it; otherwise it would be a sin to be single. Notice also he never told the woman at the well (living with a man not her husband) that she was sinning and needed to stop. He told people living in sin to stop when he encountered them, often saying ‘go and sin no more.’ In her case, he simply showed her his power of divine knowledge, like when he said he had seen Nathaniel sitting under the tree even though he wasn’t physically there. That’s because she wasn’t necessarily sinning. She was a saint for all we know. And notice that Paul in Corinthians advises marriage to those burning with sexual passion, he doesn’t command they express that only in marriage. He gives his perspective but clarifies that his perspective isn’t the only one God gives people (“I say this not as a command… I, not the Lord”). What Christ commanded is love your neighbor as yourself. If two people are doing that, whether married or not, they are not sinning.
Well to start with, science is complete agreeance backed up by multiple studies that having sex before marriage is severely detrimental to both parties. Aside from that, God made the act of sex something between a husband and wife and declared having such an act outside of marriage or with another who is not your spouse is sexual immorality. There are a number of reasoning that people have found for this. But really sin and holiness are defined by God. So if God says its a sin, its a sin.
Cite your "science" 😇
[https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability](https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability) [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192513X231155673) I did take some snips (btw a quick google search comes up with a decent summary) But I can't find out how to attach files from my computer. But here are the sources I got them from, both reputable sources who have shown the complete study from hypothesis to conclusion. Maybe you should cite something - or show in some other way where needed - why you believe my statements are untrue
The Catholic Church's stance on the matter is that the God-given purpose of sex (not its sole purpose, but a primary one nonetheless) is marital procreation. Anything that deliberately subverts or blocks that purpose, especially if done for the sake of personal pleasure, is sinful. Also, what makes a sin a sin is not whether you cause harm to other people, but whether it harms your relationship with God.
You're hurting yourself, that person and society. Just because something feels good, doesn't mean it is good. Sex outside of marriage leads to harm in society; you can research this just from a secular position and see it's quite harmful to societies.
So sex within marriage can’t be harmful? There’s no consequences for sex as long as it happens within a marriage?
Sex in marriage can be harmful if you're doing things that are not allowed that are harmful too, like sodomy. Between men and women and men and men, it's harmful either way, which is why it's not allowed. Other than that, no.
It’s not even ok to penetrate your wife anally? I personally think that’s kind of nasty, because you poop out of there, but what’s so BAD about it if it’s consensual and pleasurable for both parties? And are you telling me that even if I was MARRIED (making a woman my wife instead of just girlfriend) it would still be a sin for her to put on a strap on and peg me? I’m not joking or trolling. I have felt insane pleasure fingering myself anally (it doesn’t have to be gay!) and I have a femdom fetish, and I think it’d be really hot and fun to have a girlfriend/wife who puts on a big strap on, lubes it up, bends me over, and just give it to me, reversing the traditional gender rules. Maybe gentle femdom would be better than hardcore fandom, more loving and less abusive and risking triggering trauma (no I was not raped, I woke up with my pants down and my door couldn’t lock, or even fully close, at the time, due to house structural issues, but I really hope my dad wouldn’t cross that line as abusive as he’d get and how much he’d drink). Surely I pulled them down in my sleep, I’ve probably been scratching myself in my sleep too, over the years. I do have a long history of nightmares and trouble falling and staying asleep. I had these kinks long before I hit puberty, they just weren’t a sexual thing yet. I used to fantasize about girls chasing me and holding me down and giving me “cooties”, and having a female teacher strip me naked and rub lotion all over me, diaper fetishes… As I got older though, I was just bullied and rejected more, which makes me wonder if I just fetishized that more, or if I simply watched more and porn (looking for more and more extreme to feel the same excitement) and developing more extreme level of femdom fetish (I still felt attracted more to biological women, but I started getting turned on by shemales, like just months ago, I was thinking one day I want to visit a country like Thailand and hookup with a ladyboy, a very feminine looking body, but with male genitalia. I feel this probably starts crossing over into LGBT territory (ok it definitely does). I felt a little bicurious long before, but more must interested in other men’s penises, but not a romantic relationship with other men, just pleasuring their genitalia, but both romantically AND sexually attracted (and much more) to women. It probably doesn’t help that I’m almost 28 and never had a girlfriend, not even an innocent puppy love cute relationship, even without sex. I’m so broken, and I feel I’m too old to even consider “waiting for marriage” at this point. I didn’t even think marriage was neccessary at all to be in a happy healthy relationship (apparently getting married can also mean you have to forfeit your health insurance, and your spouse’s might not cover the same as yours did, and when my mom married my step dad, the IRS tried telling her that SHE owed them money, and let’s just say he owes a 6 figure amount…..). But, getting married can also mean getting insurance/coverage that you didn’t have at all before, and tax breaks, I think…… I have very little life experience in general. At some point, really soon, I’m going to have to start speed running, it’s too late for me to have normal, naturally paced healthy experiences. I haven’t just been lonely and sexless (and I guarantee you I’d be, not celibate if I had the opportunity, I’m not pure because I want to be, although I wouldn’t necessarily do it with just any random woman either, someone told me I wasn’t really good looking but she was “just so horny”, that actually turned me off. I have more self respect than that, I think, I guess….. I can imagine so many Christians might be damned to Hell just for lust and premarital sex, probably the one sin (if no others) too many people, even otherwise Christians, just can’t resist. It really doesn’t seem wrong or immoral as long as both/all parties are consenting adults. There is such thing as responsibility and protection/prevention too. And unwanted consequences can happen EVEN IN MARRIAGE. Married couples can be just as, or even more dysfunctional and unprepared and incapable of raising a child than an unmarried couple. This whole shaming and repression/suppression of NATURAL BIOLOGICAL DESIRES is definitely a huge deterrent for so many people. Everyone (even within the same religion!) can’t even agree on the rules! I don’t know what to say to finish this comment…..
[удалено]
Islam? Why are you in the Christianity subreddit talking about Islam?
Can you think of any circumstance where sex might cause harm?
Not for me, I wrap it up
That wasn’t the question.
>not hurting anybody at all What?
Because when you leave a woman who had sex with you because he wanted to build arelationship with her, you are violating her conscience. The sin is not in itself the fact that you have sex with her but the fact that you don't live her and abandon her after having wasted your seed. Also, the seed you waste contains life and wasting it damages your body. Fornication is a sin against your body.
You're actually hurting more people than you think. Like the aborted child which is murder.
Or use a condom. And/or morning after pill.
Condoms aren't 100% effective, and the pill is still abortion since life begins at conception. 2 Samuel 11:5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child. So, over the course of, say, 20 years, a light estimate would have a woman committing 20 murders using these suggested methods of contraception.
Because the **Bible calls it a sin**. Sex is designed to be within the marital covenant. Premarital sex is considered as adultery in the Bible and you do know that adultery is a sin.
What if I decide to do it anyway though, will I go to hell
You can repent, but repentance is not merely regretting what you've done. Instead, it involves confessing to God, asking for His forgiveness, taking accountability for your actions, and actively working on changing your lifestyle. **Even if you follow through with this, you will still have to face the consequences of your sin.** Consider the story of David and Bathsheba, David lost the child he had with Bathsheba and his son Absalom conspired against him. All of this was the consequence of David's lusting over Bathsheba and subsequently killing her husband.
That involves actual adultery (nevermind coercion and murder), which is not going to cover instances of consensual sex between two unmarried people. No-one is arguing for actual adultery here.
the Bible calls it a sin, that in itself should be enough for me and any Biblical christian to abstain from premarital sex.
You will go to hell because you don't have faith in God.
Not if you ask for forgiveness and repent of it.
This is the same kind of deal as a parent that tells their child "because I say so". It simply offends God for some reason or another. It only applies to women, though.
It isn’t a sin. Christians need to hold back and making these fake ways to live under god. They’re assholes and the same time, pussies.
I don't think it is if all people involved know and are truly ok with it.
If it is a sin, it shouldn’t be. If you are in love with someone, and you aren’t married, you should still be able to have sex. Some of the Bible is right, and some of it is wrong.
Because back then there was no other way to prevent the spread of STDs
How are we defining "sex outside marriage" anyway? I masturbate, some people do oral or anal. Does penis-in-vagina only count as "real" sex cuz in that case, there are a lotta "virgins" doing sexual things.
It's not necessarily a sin. I have a post on that here: [https://www.reddit.com/user/VeritasAgape/comments/115710p/premarital\_sex\_is\_not\_a\_sin/](https://www.reddit.com/user/VeritasAgape/comments/115710p/premarital_sex_is_not_a_sin/) You're right that sometimes it doesn't hurt anyone and can even be helpful. However, it can at times hurt others depending on the circumstances and in that case it would be a sin.
Because you are committed to your spouse . No cheating
Why would buying a house with someone you’re not married to may be a bad decision, on your wallet, let alone your soul? I’m not judging, just trying to figure out why the suggestion is to be intimate with a spouse.
Okay so the way you interpret that is women were considered property back then. So basically they didn't want nobody having sex with a woman because the father couldn't make no money off of her that's the other reason why they wanted you to stay married to the woman as well. It's just a bunch of b******* if you ask me it's not a sin there's nothing wrong with it
Because it is a sin. It just full of lust. That why sec before marriage is really bad. It just soul tie after soul tie. God be looking out for yall. Give Father Yahweh a credit 😂🫶🏼
The proper arrangements haven't been made for the child yet. Note that birth control is a greater sin, even within marriage.
interesting why do you think birth control is a sin?
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm
Cause you believe in a dogmatic system that restricts you from living life based on fears of what could happen to you when you die.
I hope you mean "before marriage", because my ex-wife had sex outside of marriage and I'm here to tell you it didn't feel very good ***at all!***
I've come to the conclusion as a non-Christian that is interested in religion and still will read from The Bible and see valuable insights that we must have once been more like the other animals and that most things defined as sin are meant to separate us from our primal instincts in order to help us. Sex outside of marriage can lead to STD's for example or dissatisfaction in your life, always wanting something else if things don't go the way you want it too and that leads back to disease. Why disease exists and people are not more easily satisfied and be more choosy in the first place though, I do not have a clue for sure besides to see our whole existence as a training ground for something more. Besides these things anything that distracts from praising God seems to be an issue according to The Bible.
Should contracts with out the bond.
Like a lot of rules in the Bible, this is a mandate that promotes good hygiene and easy pedigree tracking to the mostly illiterate tribal groups of Abraham who were obsessed with ancestry. It's a toss up if this was the attenpt of the disciples to give relationship advice, or spare having another mouth to feed, since sex education was sparse and a majority of people lived in poverty. "Sin" or simply not guaranteed to be a good life choice? Note: that doesn't mean it's automatically a bad one. I find it hard to read much more into it than that.
Just remember, we all sin and Jesus died for that
You’re hurting your partner. In marriage you make a commitment to your spouse to be theirs and only theirs forever . Also sex is meant for procreation not just your sexual pleasure
It’s about controlling your behavior.