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?

Jesus loved people and I don’t think he’d be annoyed about this. The bible is fairly culturally directed, but the central theme from Jesus is he loved people. So no as a Christian I don’t see it as a problem. There are far more problematic things Christian’s do, like the right wing of America who claim to be Christian.

To be fair , that concern can apply to all marrying couples , like we talked before. I assume(correct me if I’m wrong), that you see the lack of sex before marriage as something that increases the chances of “success “ of said marriage or a greater degree of commitment? As it involves a certain degree of effort in a way?

How do you feel about couples on their second marriage, or where only one partner is divorced? Feel free to ignore this question, as I’m digressing a bit.

Marriage being something superficial is as old as marriage itself. Political and business alliances rather than commitment to a loving Christian family.

Marriage has not been sacred for many people for a long time and it wasn't modern folk having sex before marriage that wrecked its reputation.

You’re right that the concern about the seriousness of commitment applies to all couples, whether they’ve had sex before marriage or not. But I do think that waiting until marriage shows a willingness to exercise self-control and put the relationship’s long-term foundation ahead of immediate desires, which can reflect a deeper commitment and respect for what marriage is meant to be. It does not guarantee success but it shows an intention to honour the marriage covenant from the start.

Regarding second marriages or marriages where one person is divorced, I believe they should be approached with honesty and humility. Jesus taught that divorce was allowed in cases of sexual immorality but otherwise spoke strongly about the lifelong nature of marriage. That said, many churches acknowledge that people make mistakes, relationships can break down and God offers forgiveness and new beginnings.

So while I believe the ideal is a lifelong first marriage, I also think couples entering a second marriage should take their vows seriously and commit fully, understanding both the challenges and the opportunity for a fresh start.

Loves people? Only if you worship me and obey my rules - otherwise I’ll send you to hell?

You are right that Jesus loved people unconditionally, and that love is central to the Christian faith. But Jesus also called people to repent and live according to God’s standards, including in matters of sexual morality. His love never meant ignoring sin or redefining what is right and wrong to make people feel comfortable.

While it is true that the Bible was given in specific cultural contexts, Jesus consistently pointed back to God’s original design for marriage as a lifelong, faithful union between a man and a woman, and he reaffirmed standards that many today find challenging. Love in the Christian sense is not just accepting everything; it includes calling each other to live according to God’s truth.

Yes, Christians can and do get things horribly wrong, including those who misuse faith for political power or hatred. But their failures do not erase what Jesus taught about how we should live, and dismissing biblical sexual ethics because others behave badly misses the point.

If we say we follow Jesus, we should strive to live by what he taught, not only the parts that feel easy or comfortable.

Throughout history, many people treated marriage as a transaction for political, economic, or social advantage rather than as a sacred, loving union. But that does not mean marriage itself was never meant to be sacred or that its original purpose is invalid. The misuse of something does not erase its true meaning or value.

The Bible consistently presents marriage as a covenant reflecting God’s faithful love, not a mere contract. Jesus reaffirmed that marriage was designed by God to unite two people in lifelong, faithful love, not as a tool for alliances or social climbing.

It is true that modern casual attitudes toward sex did not invent problems in marriage, but they do contribute to undermining the seriousness of the commitment marriage is supposed to represent. A history of people misusing marriage does not justify continuing to treat it as disposable or optional today.
If anything, it shows even more why a return to understanding marriage as a sacred, committed relationship is important.

Are you asking this as a Christian who is wondering about the choices of other people who call themselves Christians?
Or are you asking as a non Christian or atheist who is questioning the hypocrisy of some aspects of religion?
Because if it’s the second then your thinking is the same as mine. Lots of people who claim to be Christian, or even religious in general (because I don’t necessarily think it’s just Christians) pick and choose the bits they want to follow and the bits they don’t. So by that logic they shouldn’t really be calling themselves religious should they?
Then again, the bible is full of archaic ideas and standards that are just impossible to expect of human beings. Would a just God really think that menstruating women were unclean/sinful, for example? And would a just and loving God really think there was anything wrong with two people in love living in the same house and having sex before marriage?
There are also genuinely shallow people out there who aren’t religious or practicing in any way, in fact might even call themselves atheists, but who think getting married in church just looks good.
I’m an atheist by the way.

A lot of people pick and choose. I went on a couple of dates with a man who described himself as very Christian. I learned that he was a bit of a sl*t so I asked him how he mixed that with his Christianity and he just blushed and shrugged.

Why is “historic Christian doctrine” more likely to be right than “what many Christian’s churches teach today”?

How do you know what’s right and what’s wrong? Says who?

I am asking as someone genuinely interested in how Christians reconcile traditional teachings with modern practices, especially around sex and marriage. I am aware that many people of all religions pick and choose which parts they follow, but I think that raises important questions about what it means to take a faith seriously. If someone openly disregards core teachings but still wants the label or ceremonies of that faith, it seems inconsistent.

I agree it is not just Christians who do this, and of course there are people who want a church wedding purely for appearances without any belief behind it. But for those who do identify as Christians, it is fair to ask how they justify living in ways that go against what the Bible and church have taught for centuries.

Regarding the Bible’s teachings like menstrual purity laws, it is important to understand that Christians believe some Old Testament ceremonial laws were given specifically to ancient Israel and fulfilled in Christ, while moral laws, like those around sexual ethics, are seen as universal and timeless. The fact that people struggle with or dislike certain teachings does not mean they are invalid if you believe the Bible reflects God’s will.

Ultimately, the question is not whether people fall short, everyone does. But whether they acknowledge where they fall short and seek to align their lives with their faith rather than redefining their faith to match their choices.

Historic Christian doctrine is more likely to be reliable because it is rooted in teachings that have been consistently held across cultures and centuries by believers who were closer to the original events of Jesus’ life and the early church. These teachings were formed with serious study of Scripture, reflection and consensus long before modern cultural pressures.

When churches today radically change core beliefs to match what is popular or comfortable, it raises the question of whether they are following God’s standards or simply reshaping faith to fit society’s shifting values. Just because many churches teach something different today does not automatically make it right if it contradicts what Scripture says and what Christians have always understood it to mean.

Christians believe what is right and wrong is revealed by God through Scripture, not decided by what is easiest or most accepted in any given time. While traditions can make mistakes, dismissing historic teachings in favour of modern reinterpretations should not be done lightly, especially when those reinterpretations go against the clear moral teachings the church has upheld for nearly two thousand years.

That is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Many people today call themselves Christians but pick and choose which parts of their faith to follow, especially when it comes to sexual ethics. It is not about expecting perfection. Everyone falls short but about whether someone is willing to acknowledge when they are living in a way that goes against their beliefs.

Simply shrugging it off instead of wrestling with what faith teaches shows a lack of seriousness about living out the commitment that being a Christian involves. This kind of attitude contributes to the confusion about what Christianity actually teaches and undermines the credibility of the faith in the eyes of others.

You’re just dressing up your own pick and mix Christianity here.

You cannot judge if a marriage is sacred, nor can those performing the marriage ceremony. That is an issue for the couple and God.

You don’t need a church wedding for a committed relationship - we’ve been married 30 years and no church wedding. (Plenty of pre marital sex!).

You are right that ultimately only God knows the hearts of a couple and whether their commitment is sincere. But that does not mean there is no place for the church or community to uphold and teach what marriage is meant to represent according to Scripture.

While we cannot see into people’s souls, the Bible gives clear guidance on what marriage should be: a lifelong, faithful union reflecting God’s covenant love. When a couple seeks a Christian wedding, it is not just a private matter between them and God; it is a public declaration of their intent to live out that biblical vision of marriage.

So while judgment of someone’s heart belongs to God alone, the church has a responsibility to stand by what it believes marriage is and to call couples to take those vows seriously rather than treating them as empty words or a mere formality.

Don't you think that people who claim to be christian and that premarital sex is compatible with that are simply lukewarm Christians?

Yes, I do think that when people claim to be Christian but openly say premarital sex is perfectly compatible with their faith, it reflects a lukewarm approach to Christianity. Jesus warned against being lukewarm in Revelation 3:16, saying he would rather people be hot or cold than claim faith while living in a way that contradicts it.

Christianity calls believers to strive for holiness, including in sexual ethics, even when it is difficult or unpopular. Picking and choosing only the easy or culturally acceptable parts of faith while ignoring clear biblical teachings shows a lack of seriousness about following Jesus fully.

That does not mean Christians are expected to be perfect, but it does mean they should acknowledge when they fall short and seek to align their lives with God’s standards not redefine sin to suit their preferences.

Well then there's your answer.
Yanbu to think it's hypocritical.

Goodnight and God bless.

Did you mean the thing with soul survivor quite recently?

The Old Testament was written by Bronze Age agricultural people and contains many appalling ideas that contradict what we know as the truth today about cosmology, biology and morality. The core beliefs that were consistently held across cultures and centuries about slavery or the rights of women or how life on earth began or whether the earth revolves around the sun are no longer popular or comfortable. Most Christians now believe that the teachings that prevailed over centuries were profoundly wrong.

The New Testament was written by people in the decades after the death of the historic individual known as Jesus (if he ever existed).

Why do you think any of those historic writings are more valid because they have been held for a long time? For a long time, Christians promoted slavery and justified it by looking in their Scripture.

He definitely existed regardless of how you view his teachings

I think Jesus existed but wasn’t anything special. Just a man of the times, got himself into trouble and got killed.

Seems unlikely a religion would have grown up around someone who was "nobody special". You don't have to believe he was divine to think he might have been a bit special!