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?

If we assume you are correct and sex before marriage is a sin then you should look at why and how this would be taught. Marriage gave women rights and still does. Illegitimate children would be disadvantaged. Childbirth was dangerous and a family network vital to ensure babies had the best chance or survival. Look up modern believers understand that some rules were relevant for the time, eg not eating pork before refrigeration was invented. You sound very bitter, why do you care?

Convenient? How?
You expect people to take a holy book and do exactly as it says to do?
Shock horror, there are people of all religions that absolutely love their god but don’t follow texts word for word and that’s okay

It is true that setting up a home together and having children shows a serious level of commitment. But from a biblical perspective, commitment isn’t just about living together or starting a family. It is about entering a covenant before God that is recognised by the community as marriage.

In the Bible, marriage involved more than private intentions. It included a clear, public commitment that set the relationship apart as exclusive and lifelong. Simply living together and having children doesn’t automatically make a couple married in the biblical sense if they haven’t formally committed to each other as husband and wife.

So while those things show dedication, they don’t fully meet the criteria for marriage as described in Scripture.

I agree that many biblical rules had practical reasons in their historical context, like protecting women’s rights, ensuring children were cared for and safeguarding communities when medicine and social systems were limited.

But I think for many believers, sexual ethics aren’t just about historical circumstances. They see them as part of God’s design for how people should relate to each other which they believe still has meaning today beyond cultural or medical reasons.

I’m not bitter at all. I asked these questions because I’ve noticed a disconnect between what Christianity has traditionally taught and what many Christians seem to believe now.

I understand that not everyone takes their holy texts literally or follows every rule exactly, and I agree that people can still have sincere faith even if they struggle with certain teachings. But I think the point about it seeming “convenient” is that when people or churches start changing core beliefs to match what’s easier or more acceptable in modern culture, it can look like they’re adapting their faith to fit their preferences rather than following what they believe God has revealed.

That doesn’t mean everyone needs to be perfect or never question anything, but it does raise an important issue: if the ultimate reward of salvation stays the same no matter how much the teachings are reinterpreted or relaxed, does that undermine the idea of living according to God’s standards?

It’s a genuine question about how faith stays meaningful and consistent when so much of it can be redefined to match current values.

Op if you’re having premarital sex, no one is judging you. Most Christians really don’t care what other people are doing or not doing. It seems like you’re very conflicted with your faith, maybe speak to a priest so you’re not so harsh on judging yourself

Hello, @onlytwo . I have only just seen this thread, I do find it fascinating, but please can I just ask a question (with apologies if you have answered, and in my quest to devour the whole thread I have missed your answer), have you asked your question of your own holy person (if you have stated your religion I have missed this, again my apologies) but what has your vicar/minister/rabbi/priest/imam/other holy person already said to you about this subject, and what guidance have they given you? I am wondering what you think MN people can tell you what your own holy person can’t.

I’m an atheist. I don’t go round killing or hurting anything.
Holy books are not facts. If you have to fear a perceived god to be a good person then 🤷‍♀️
Jesus taught love, forgiveness and being nice to others. I don’t think that’s something that has changed. Those are all things that are still important today.

You see I'm not sure that abstinence until marriage is a core belief in Christianity. Sure you could make a scriptural argument for it, but it's not what I consider a core belief.🤷‍♀️

Many atheists live with compassion and integrity. But for Christians, Jesus wasn’t just a teacher who said “be nice.” He also taught about moral standards and called people to live in ways that went beyond what society found acceptable including how they approached things like honesty, humility, sexuality and forgiveness.

Jesus’ teachings weren’t vague ideas about kindness; they were radical commands to live differently. For Christians, following those teachings isn’t optional or just about being generally good. It’s about aligning their lives with what they believe is a divine standard.

So yes, Jesus taught love and forgiveness but he also made it clear that following him meant a commitment to a way of life that often goes against what’s easiest or most popular. That’s an important part of his message that hasn’t changed.

Judging from the ops other posts they have form to start a thread and argue with anyone that disagrees with them. And no they didn’t close their own religion, they certainly have a lot to say about something that might not even affect them.

I agree that beliefs like the divinity of Jesus, his death and resurrection, and loving others are absolutely central to Christianity. But traditional Christian teaching has consistently included sexual ethics as an important part of living out faith.

From the early church through nearly every major denomination until very recently, abstinence until marriage was taught as the standard for Christians. It wasn’t seen as a side issue but as part of honouring God with your body as Paul writes in passages like 1 Corinthians 6:18-20.

While it might not be at the very centre of doctrines like salvation, it has historically been a clear expectation of Christian moral living not just a minor suggestion. The fact that many Christians today don’t follow or emphasise it doesn’t mean it wasn’t long considered an important part of Christian discipleship.

So there is your answer @onlytwo.

Like you, Christians who have sex and children outside of marriage, don't consider abstinence to be a core belief.

They understand the traditions and teachings behind it and that traditions and teachings change. They are not core beliefs.

That might be how some Christians see it today, but it doesn’t change the fact that abstinence before marriage has been a clear and consistent part of Christian teaching for nearly two thousand years. The Bible and church tradition have always treated sex as something meant for marriage not just a casual or optional guideline.

Saying it’s not a core belief because some Christians ignore it is like saying honesty or forgiveness aren’t core beliefs if people lie or hold grudges. Personal choices don’t redefine what a faith teaches.

So while it’s true that many people today don’t live by that standard, it doesn’t mean abstinence before marriage was never central to Christian moral teaching.

Oh, here we go; talking about St Paul speaking about ‘honouring God with your body’. Paul did many marvellous things but was also a dreadful misogynist, even given that he was a man of his time.

So were you a Christian?

Paul/Saul was a wanker. Even Christians think so.

It is still something that Christians can adhere to, if they choose to. If they are devout they will. No different from any religion.

Galatians is in the New Testament

The more they go on the more obvious it is they really have no clue. All a bit desperate.

It is true that in any religion, people can choose how closely they follow their teachings. But the difference I’ve noticed is that many Christians even on this thread don’t just quietly fall short of the standard. They openly say it’s perfectly fine to have premarital sex and that it doesn’t conflict with their faith at all.

In other religions, people who have premarital sex might still do it but they generally acknowledge it goes against their teachings rather than claiming it is allowed. That’s what makes this situation with some Christians unique. Redefining it as acceptable within the faith even though traditional Christian teaching has clearly said otherwise.

What was the age of marriage at the time of the early church(and many centuries after)? Do you know? Because I do, and again that’s another pesky historical context.

Why you care so much and judging?
Most Christians know not to judge. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”
Matthew 7:1

You’re absolutely right that the age of marriage in biblical times and for many centuries after was much younger than what we consider acceptable today. In many cultures, girls were often married were young which reflected different social and economic realities.

But the point of Christian sexual ethics wasn’t about encouraging early marriage specifically. It was about teaching that sex belongs within the lifelong commitment of marriage, whatever age that marriage happened. The historical context of marrying younger doesn’t change the core principle that premarital sex was seen as outside God’s design.

So while cultural details like age of marriage have definitely changed, the expectation of abstinence before marriage as an expression of sexual integrity has remained consistent in Christian teaching.

MN is not the world, it is not representative of Christianity.
I’ve known a few devout Christian’s who wait until marriage. I know more who don’t.
That’s the difference I suppose with being devout or not.
In western culture you get to choose how devoted you want to be. It’s a personal choice