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?

You’re right that the Greek word porneia is often translated as “fornication” or “sexual immorality,” and it can cover a range of illicit sexual behaviours. But in the context of Jewish and early Christian teaching, porneia definitely included premarital sex, not just prostitution or adultery.

For example, Jesus says in Matthew 15:19 that porneia (sexual immorality) comes from the heart and defiles a person, and in Matthew 19:4-6, he points back to Genesis and affirms that sexual union is meant for marriage, where two become “one flesh.”

So while Jesus doesn’t explicitly say “premarital sex is a sin” in modern English words, the moral teaching he affirms and the way porneia was understood in his time clearly prohibits sex outside marriage. Early Christians and Jewish tradition both interpreted porneia to forbid premarital sex.

That’s why, even if the specific wording has changed through translations, the consistent understanding of Christian teaching for nearly 2,000 years has been that premarital sex is forbidden.

So if society has moved with the times why do you not think religion should too?
Core beliefs 2k years ago do not align with modern society.
Why, in a day and age that being gay is acceptable, should a religious group still adhere to ideas that belong in medieval times?
I think morality comes from being a good person. Not what is written in any religious book.

No apologies necessary. I interpreted it as you meaning they were free to not hide their sexuality 😀It’s a huge step in terms of the church becoming more progressive. Will everyone like it, probably not but I don’t think the church has any choice but to move forward as the numbers are already dwindling. I think more religions need to be tolerable of gay people. Banning or making someone’s else’s sexual orientation illegal just because you don’t agree with it just seems barbaric. Do it really affect your life that much? No, it doesn’t.

I agree that society has changed dramatically over the past 2000 years. But if religion is based on the belief that there is a divine truth or moral standard revealed by God, then those core teachings aren’t supposed to shift just because culture does. Otherwise, faith becomes just a reflection of whatever society thinks is acceptable at any given moment, rather than a consistent guide.

If you believe morality comes purely from what feels good or what society deems acceptable, then morality can change completely from one generation or culture to the next, and what’s considered right today could be wrong tomorrow. But religious teachings aim to offer a standard of right and wrong that’s not dependent on social trends, which is exactly why many faiths still hold to beliefs that conflict with modern views.

That doesn’t mean people should treat others with hatred or bigotry, but it does mean that if a religion starts changing its core beliefs to fit every new cultural shift, it risks losing its identity and authority altogether.

Ultimately, the question is whether truth is something fixed and revealed or something we invent and reinvent based on what’s popular. That’s a fundamental difference in how people see morality.

Because salvation and life after death is the reward for living a Christian life. Can’t keep changing the rules because the players don’t like the game.

Sin is just a concept in religion to make people behave a certain way - worship god or you’ll go to hell.
Im no more a sinner than anyone else and I’m certainly not going to hell.

Well, depending how far back you go, there wasn’t any real “marriage” either. It was the union between a man and a woman under the eyes of God , and consummating that union . As simple as , a woman going into a tent with a man. And then things changed, customs, morals , traditions ,Meanings changed . Things started to mean different things. Expectations changed.

Some people can’t or won’t accept that, or want to pick and choose the bits that suit THEM, when none of it is exactly as it was.

We are saying the same thing.

But at the same time , if you go that far back (genesis and other parts of the ild testament), marriage as we see it today, wasn’t a thing. It was a union in front of God (not priests,no papers ) and the consummation of that union. Basically, any couple that has sex and plans to stay together and love eachother are married in the eyes of God. Just like Isaac married Rebekkah by taking her into the tent. That was it. They met, they went in, they had sex, they were married.

What would constitute marriage has changed over the years though. In place and time, different standards or legalities would define marriage. In the uk you can be married in a registers office. Are you married in the eyes of God? Or are you fornicating? Maybe you had a church blessing to marry your current partners so perhaps married in the sight of God…. but are still legally married to someone else. Is that fornication?

Who is to say what counts as marriage? In years gone by marriage was a contract mainly about property. Poor people didn't need it as they had nothing. If they were moved in together, they were treated as married. Marriage was a behaviour, not a piece of paper.

Couples who are committed and monogamous fall within the expectation of Christian behaviour imo.

But the fact is they do shift. Many priests were married and it was very normal during the years of early Christianity. The shift then changed to priest becoming celibate. Then the shift changed again to most other churches allowing priests to marry apart from the RC church which still applies today.

Yes we are. My discussion was with OP , so I don’t actually know why you think we are in disagreement or that I don’t believe the same things you do.

You are right that marriage in ancient times looked very different from today’s formal ceremonies and legal paperwork. In the Old Testament, marriage was often a family-arranged agreement sealed by sexual union, not a priest-led ceremony with vows or a marriage license.

But it’s important to remember that even then, the cultural and biblical expectation was that sex and commitment were inseparable. A man taking a woman into his home for sex was not casual; it was understood as entering a lifelong covenant of marriage, with responsibilities and obligations to each other and their families.

So while there was not a church wedding or civil paperwork like we have today, there was still a clear understanding that sex outside that lifelong commitment was immoral and dishonourable. The idea that any couple having sex with plans to stay together automatically counts as “married in God’s eyes” today doesn’t match the biblical context, because biblical marriage included public recognition, family involvement, and a binding commitment, not just private intentions.

So yes, marriage looked simpler in ancient times, but it was still a formal, exclusive covenant, not just any consensual sexual relationship.

Setting up home and having children meets that criteria though, surely?

But the couple who are standing at the altar but have been living together for years prior do not believe that they have been married prior to that point in time…

Very good point about the church moving with the times. There are shifts amongst the church that you can deny. The COE was created because the Pope wouldn't annual Henry’s marriage to Catherine, so he started his own church. Women can also become priests and Bishops and priests can marry unlike the RC church.

All these changes, leniencies, interpretations, moving with the times and the same reward being salvation and life after death… seems convenient.

I feel it very much depends on the testament you read and how you interpret it

I mean do you also think that Roman Catholics who use contraception are hypocritical? Life is nuanced and complex.

And if you don’t live a Christian life - what happens - nothing so im not worried

Well that’s why I don’t (can’t) proclaim to be a Christian. Feels hypocritical to bend the rules to fit my lifestyle (although I’m now married) because I’m fearful of the consequences.

I got married in a church - I'm not a Christian (I'm not even baptised), I'm an atheist - I just like churches.

How do you know what they believe?

Only for those who believe

What are you fearful of?