to not understand Christians who have sex/live together before marriage then marry in church?

[onlytwo]

Posting here because I am genuinely confused and not trying to offend anyone.

I keep seeing couples who describe themselves as Christians who have been living together for years, sometimes with kids, then they get married in church with all the religious vows etc. I thought one of the key Christian teachings is no sex before marriage yet it seems really common that people ignore that part but still have a big church wedding.

AIBU to think it is hypocritical?

Once again, I’ve read the bible, on several occasions. You keep up with this same rhetoric so again I ask you - give me the context!!! Give me the context for the justification of the young women who were raped and murdered. You can start with Deuteronomy 22:13-21 or Lot’s daughters (the bit about him offering his virgin daughters to be gang raped specifically) and tell me the context that justifies these scenarios.

Can you quote the bible section where it says sex outside of marriage is sinful

Surprised that as many as 22% of respondents would see this as a reasonable position tbh.

For those in smaller church communities, I agree it may be more difficult.

However if they use Christian dating apps or are part of a bigger church community then no I don’t think it will be more difficult to find someone willing to wait, as there are others who share this belief that sex is for marriage.

if a person truly believes that sex is for marriage, then they are less likely to break this belief and remain single as a result. I can think of several people whom I know who have chosen this option. That might sound awful to those who don’t share this faith, but to those believers it is an important part of what makes up their faith and therefore not something they are willing to compromise on.

In CoE, anything goes 🤷‍♀️

But surely as long as a Roman Catholic goes to the Confessional and confesses his/her sins, the Priest will usually give them so many Hail Mary's to say, and then that sin is forgiven?

I think that they can sin like that lots of times, and if they pay for their sins, they will still be forgiven again and again!

If we were to go straight to the Pearly Gates, I don't think that people who have had consenting sex - whether before marriage or not - will be forbidden entrance?

As for "it" being in the Bible, you do know that most religious concepts were made by man to suit the times in which they lived.

For many Christians, the writings of the Old Testament are considered to be little more than stories to both explain, and order, how a person's life should be lived, in accordance with the era they lived in.

The Old Testament suggests that punishments should follow "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" whereas Jesus says that we should "turn the other cheek".

I just can't believe that Jesus would look down on people who had sex before marriage, as long as they didn't hurt anyone else while doing so.

Most Christians know and accept they are 'flawed'. We all do/say things in life that we shouldn't. We all make mistakes. To err is human. It's about trying to do our best but knowing that we will often fall short. Church/religion (should be) about acceptance, forgiveness and be a welcoming space for all.

Sex is evil
Sex is a sin
Sins are forgiven
So get stuck in!

As the great Christian apologist C. S. Lewis said:
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

If I'm wrong and it is just my belief, then it is of no consequence.

I used to believe the same as you until God opened my eyes to His wonderful truth. Jesus truly is the Way and the Life.

That is true. Plenty of Jews do not keep full kosher or strictly observe Shabbat, and many Muslims do not pray five times a day or wear hijab. But the difference is that they usually acknowledge they are falling short of what their faith asks, rather than saying those things are okay or allowed by their religion. People might do it, but they don’t claim the scriptures permit it.

@MollyMollyMandy33

"I could pick out hundreds of seemingly offensive or strange verses in the Bible, but when you unpack them, understand the context and the time in which they were written, it becomes clear." This is precisely what I meant when I said we have to view the Bible through the lens of history.

And, respectfully, my theology degree and years as a catechist mean I have, at least, a passing understanding of the Bible. Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't mean they don't understand what they're talking about. 😉

Christians are no better or worse at adhering to their religions rules than any other religion.

Plenty of Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews etc etc etc pick and choose what to adhere to. Each also has sub groups who have different interpretations and emphasis on certain rules.

I don't think you have a broad enough knowledge to support your claims about Christianity OP.
It's no better or worse than any Religion, truly.

There are a lot of unrealistic, not to mention unsavoury, things in the bible. If Christians adhered to the bible they’d all be in prison.

Leviticus 15: 28-30

But if she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and bring them to the priest, to the entrance of the tent of meeting. And the priest shall use one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her before the Lord for her unclean discharge

Do any Christian women still do this?

I stopped after the fourth month; decided it was cruel. 😒

But the difference with Muslims, Sikhs and Jews (I don't know about Buddhism) is that they usually acknowledge they are falling short of what their faith asks, rather than saying those things are okay or allowed by their religion. Their scriptures are clear sex before marriage is not permitted.

I came on to say that from anthropological point of view sex was dangerous for unwed women in particular due to disease, pregnancy and birth. Being married then (and today) offered women protection and support financially- hopefully. I believe it was more of a cultural sin than a mortal sin. The translation from Greek is often used in a couple of different ways and with different undertones. It depends on who did the translating of texts and what their personal/religious views were and the narrative they wanted to push. Just like it is today.

The lack of medical knowledge was also a massive hindrance. Womens cycles were just beginning to be understood on a base level and of course they were controlled by the moon. (Eye roll here) therefore sex equaled a baby, which equalled more mouths to feed and house.

I firmly believe that the no sex before marriage was a form of very early contraception. The fear of God sometimes being greater than the fear of pregnancy, disease, birth injuries/infection or death.

Also, interestingly there are many written accounts from the middle ages where men and women would enter cohabitation and have children to be married when a wandering priest or monk finally visited their village or one in very close proximity. Not all areas had churches or a religious figure permanently present. This was an accepted practice and kept village's and farms working and growing. It was simply life.

The pressure of no sex before marriage was much more present for those in the higher classes where women and girls' virginity were essentially sold to the highest bidder to form alliances etc.

In short; no sex before marriage was equally a societal, cultural and supported by religion tenet.

The Bible describes a God who created the world and everything in it, and the universe, by speaking it into existence. A God who is omnipotent.

It would hardly be a challenge for him to make a virgin pregnant.

I realise most people refuse to believe what the bible says about God. But the virgin birth is not even the most miraculous bit.

I completely disagree with your interpretation of the quotes you've cited. Firstly:
•Why would you use the King James Version which is neither the closest to the original (ESV) or the easiest to understand?
• Neither of the quotes you have given mention anything about pre-marital sex? One mentions adultery but one has to be married to commit adultery.

Secondly, I personally think who has sex with whom has been given far too much thought in modern times. Pre-marital sex, homosexual sex...literally none of anyone's business. If you would like to interpret the Bible in that way (which I personally don't), then crack on, but don't tell others that they must live by your interpretation of a tbh dodgy translation of these texts that are thousands of years old.

It is one of the Ten Commandments that one shouldn’t commit adultery, yet I know of quite a few committed Christian’s (who live for the church) who have had affairs.
Think of all the church leaders who have committed all sorts of hideous crimes involving children. Completely goes against the church’s teachings, yet they do it.
Unfortunately a lot of so called religious people pick and choose what they take from their religion

The Christian scriptures are just as clear on this though!

It's individuals who question it, interpret it differently, say its OK . The reasoning that a Christian can make to excuse sex before marriage is no different to that of a person of any other religion excusing a Sin. They'll all say to themselves "well its forbidden BUT......"

The Christians who have sex before marriage aren't changing their religions rules- they're just trying to justify their sin. Just like everyone of every religious persuasion.

At the end of the day - why are you so hung up on this? Why is it such a big deal to you?

BTW - I am Agnostic so have no axe to grind.

That poster just keeps repeating the same thing without giving any explanation or context despite insisting that it exists if only your tiny brain could comprehend it.

The apps would be connecting you with other people who are part of a minority. It's obviously easier if you don't have to confine yourself to a certain group.

Then in your last paragraph you make it clear you're talking about very religious people. This is not the average Christian in the UK today.

But the difference with Muslims, Sikhs and Jews (I don't know about Buddhism) is that they usually acknowledge they are falling short of what their faith asks, rather than saying those things are okay or allowed by their religion. Their scriptures are clear sex before marriage is not permitted

You keep saying this repeatedly but it's not true. I'm Christian, my husband is Iranian and from Iran- now living in UK. He converted to Christianity but he still has loads of good Muslim friends. ALL of them currently have or have had sex before marriage and drink alcohol yet judged him for eating pepperoni on his pizza. Not a single one has ever said they recognise they are "falling short"- it was completely justified in their minds that it didnt count and was ok for them to do. I dont know why you seem to think that only Christians fall foul of this type of thinking because Christians and Muslims are both humans and humans ALL have a certain degree of cognitive dissonance - its something that affects all of us, regardless of our religion and its a psychological mechanism that we all have. So, unless you have met every Christian and every Muslim in existence its just silly to generalise about how "all of them" think

But the difference with Muslims, Sikhs and Jews (I don't know about Buddhism) is that they usually acknowledge they are falling short of what their faith asks

I want actually to pick up on this.

Do they? How do you know? Have you interviewed all of them?

I think you're very biased and showing some real prejudice here.

Again, you are completely misunderstanding the Bible and reducing it to something it was never meant to be. Just because something exists in the Bible, doesn’t mean that God approved of the actual events or even caused them. The Bible is full of terrible stories of cruelty caused by man. God clearly allowed them, but he didn’t cause them. There are however undeniably many things that we find hard to accept today and we shouldn’t shy away from this. Understanding the situation of the day does quite often help to frame the context.

However historical context isn’t just about justifying things, it’s about gaining more understanding of why things happened. Sometimes these things are from God and sometimes they are caused by man. The Bible contains lots of both.

Again, the key to understand the Bible is to appreciate that it’s a collection of books, written by many diverse authors over a period of hundreds of years. It includes letters, poems, historical accounts, instructions and lots of other genres. It’s not all written or meant to be direct instruction.

Just ‘reading the Bible’ in no way means that you understand it. The Bible is a complex and confusing collection of books which takes real study to unpack. As a Christian, I didn’t understand it for a long while and it’s only real formal study over years that has enabled me to really start to understand with depth. Just reading the Bible really offers very limited understanding; that’s why study and church teaching is important.

If you have a look at this link it explains about Lot (and many other things) really well and will save me a lot (sorry for the pun) of words.

ihttps://www.gotquestions.org/Lots-daughters.html