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?

The Old Testament reflects ancient cultural practices and contains descriptions of things like slavery or patriarchy that are appalling by today’s standards. But describing something in Scripture is not the same as prescribing it. The Bible often records human sin and brokenness without endorsing it. In fact, many of the moral teachings in both the Old and New Testaments challenged the cultural norms of their time, calling people to greater justice, mercy, and respect for others.

Regarding slavery, while Christians in history wrongly used the Bible to justify it, that was a distortion of Scripture, not a faithful reading. Many Christians, like William Wilberforce, led the abolition movement precisely because they believed biblical principles of human dignity demanded an end to slavery. The misuse of Scripture by some does not make Scripture itself invalid.

As for the New Testament, it was written by people who were either eyewitnesses to Jesus or close companions of eyewitnesses, and these writings have been consistently affirmed by Christians throughout history as authoritative. Longevity alone does not prove truth, but consistency of belief across cultures and centuries does suggest these teachings were not just cultural quirks but core convictions rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus.

Christianity is not grounded in blind adherence to outdated customs, but in the belief that God revealed himself in history and that his moral standards transcend cultural shifts. It is precisely because humans have often twisted or ignored these teachings that we see so much injustice, not because the teachings themselves were wrong.

It is possible to see Jesus as just another figure caught up in the politics of his time but that explanation does not account for the extraordinary impact he had. Unlike other wandering teachers or rebels who faded into obscurity, Jesus’ life and teachings sparked a movement that transformed the Roman Empire, survived brutal persecution and reshaped the course of history.

If Jesus was merely an ordinary man who got himself killed, it is hard to explain why his followers, many of whom were eyewitnesses, were willing to face torture and death rather than deny what they had seen and heard. People do not willingly die for what they know is a lie.

Moreover, Jesus’ teachings were radically countercultural, commanding love of enemies, forgiveness, and humility in a world that valued power and revenge. His claims to divine authority and his resurrection are not the kinds of things a mere moral teacher or political agitator would invent or be remembered for.

The idea that Jesus was “nothing special” does not match the evidence of his profound influence, the coherence of his message or the lives transformed by his teachings for over two thousand years.

These writings have been consistently affirmed by Christians throughout history as authoritative

And now, many Christians say they are not authoritative. So where does that get us?

There is no objective way of knowing if the teachings are correct or not. The Scripture is not at all clear. People of good faith disagree.

And meanwhile, in the New Testament, slaves are told to work hard for their masters, as if their masters were Christ. Is this a cultural quirk or a core conviction rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus?

Depends on your beliefs. A lot of what has been written are myths or legends developed over time.

Not all historians agree with you.

The bible also states:

"Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them." (Proverbs 13:24)

Now, you can agree with the need for interpreting the word of the bible rather than following literally or you agree with beating children.

What is also problematic is the fact that the bible has been translated multiple times from the original texts. Translation by its very nature is interpretive, hence the role of religious leaders and the differences in opinion between various subgroups.

Again, within the other abrahamic religions there are differences of opinions, subgroups and those who take the word of their religious texts literally and those who do not.

Most churches do call couples to take those vows seriously. I can't think of a single one that doesn't. Some even require the bride and groom to attend pre-marital classes about it.

What else do you want them to do?

It’s not hypocritical, it’s people having a different perspective to you. Things mean different things to different people. Understanding this is a basic aspect of emotional maturity.

Can you point me to some? I've degrees in theology and history and haven't come across a qualified academic who doubts the existence of an individual whose life and death motivated the beginning of the Christian church. Nothing to do with virgin birth, miracles, resurrection etc, just his existence. He's referenced in Roman and Jewish sources (Josephus, Philo etc) .

In my experience Christianity encourages love and family. We married in our village church, surrounded by family and friends, with the local vicar smiling upon us and (shock horror) our beautiful and beloved 3yo.

As someone who has been brought up in the faith this is not an issue and you sound judgmental, OP.

Many Christians today disagree about which parts of Scripture are authoritative, but that does not mean there is no objective truth or that Scripture is hopelessly unclear. It means people have different interpretations — which is why it is essential to approach the Bible carefully, considering the whole of its teachings, historical context, and how Christians have consistently understood it over centuries, not just what feels right in the moment.

Regarding slavery, it is true that the New Testament includes instructions for slaves to serve their masters faithfully (e.g., Ephesians 6:5). But that reflects the reality of a society where slavery was already embedded; it was not an endorsement of slavery as good or part of God’s design. Paul also wrote in Galatians 3:28 that in Christ there is neither slave nor free laying a foundation for the radical equality of all people before God.

Early Christians did not launch a violent revolution against slavery, but their teachings on the dignity and worth of every person undermined the justification for slavery over time. Christians like William Wilberforce used these very Scriptures to argue for abolition.

So while cultural quirks appear in the Bible, the core conviction rooted in Jesus’ life and teaching is that every person bears God’s image, and love, justice, and mercy are central. The instructions to slaves were given to help Christians live faithfully within unjust systems not to affirm those systems as right.

Ultimately it does depends on what someone believes, but it is important to recognise that the idea of Jesus’ story being purely myth or legend does not fit well with the historical evidence we have. The New Testament writings were produced within a generation of Jesus’ life, at a time when eyewitnesses were still alive to confirm or challenge the accounts. Myths and legends typically develop over centuries, not within decades while people who knew the events were still around.

Moreover, non-Christian sources from the first and early second centuries, like Tacitus and Josephus, mention Jesus as a real person who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and that his followers believed he rose from the dead. These accounts confirm that something extraordinary happened that changed his followers so dramatically.

The idea that Jesus’ life and teachings were simply invented or exaggerated does not explain why a tiny, persecuted group of followers managed to spread a faith that transformed the Roman world and continues to shape billions of lives today. Myths alone do not have that kind of enduring, world-changing power.

You are absolutely right that many churches do offer pre-marital counselling and encourage couples to take their vows seriously, and I think that is a good and important step. But what concerns me is when churches remain silent or even affirm choices that clearly contradict biblical teaching, like openly blessing cohabitation or premarital sex without addressing what Scripture says about these issues.

It is not about adding rules or policing people’s private lives, but about churches clearly teaching what the Bible says marriage and sexual ethics are meant to be, instead of avoiding hard truths to avoid offending people or to stay culturally popular.

I believe churches should combine grace and compassion with honest teaching, so couples know what they are committing to in a Christian marriage and understand it is not just a beautiful ceremony, but a lifelong covenant before God with real expectations.

I understand that people see things differently and that words and rituals can mean different things to different people. But when it comes to a church wedding, it is not just about personal interpretation. It is a public act in a specific religious context that has clear, established meaning within the Christian faith.

If someone chooses a church wedding while rejecting or ignoring what the church teaches marriage is meant to represent, it does not matter if they personally see it differently. They are still using a sacred ceremony to symbolise a commitment they do not actually intend to make according to the faith’s standards. That disconnect is what makes it hypocritical, because it treats something meant to be a declaration of faith as merely a personal or cultural preference.

Respecting what a church wedding means within the Christian tradition is part of taking the faith and its symbols seriously. Emotional maturity includes recognising when our personal perspective does not align with the meaning of a sacred ceremony we choose to participate in.

I agree that Christianity absolutely encourages love, family, and the celebration of marriage. My questions are not about judging individual families or trying to shame anyone, but about exploring how Christians reconcile traditional teachings on sexual ethics and marriage with modern practices like having children before marriage.

Asking honest questions about faith and how it is lived out does not mean being judgmental. It is part of trying to understand whether the faith’s teachings are still taken seriously or if they have become just cultural traditions.

I believe love and grace are central to Christianity, but so is striving to live according to what Scripture teaches. My goal is not to condemn but to have an open discussion about what it means to honour those teachings today.

Are you any closer to understanding(even if you don’t agree) after this thread?

No one rose from the dead - an impossibility, in the same way as there isn’t a virgin birth or anyone going to heaven or hell. There needs to be some credibility or your comments are meaningless.

I understand why you find the resurrection, virgin birth, or the concepts of heaven and hell impossible. They are extraordinary claims that defy natural explanations. But that is precisely the point of Christian faith: it is based on events that, if true, show God breaking into history in ways beyond what we can explain by natural means alone.

Simply saying something is impossible because it does not fit our current understanding of science does not prove it did not happen, especially when there is strong historical evidence that Jesus’ followers truly believed he rose from the dead and were willing to die for that belief. Hallucinations or fabrications do not explain why so many eyewitnesses maintained the same testimony despite persecution.

The credibility of Christianity rests on whether Jesus actually rose from the dead While you may dismiss that as impossible, the historical accounts and the radical transformation of his followers provide compelling reasons to consider that something beyond ordinary explanation took place.

Rejecting the possibility outright assumes a worldview that excludes the supernatural from the start.

OP you talk quite knowledgeably about the bible as a text with a context ..so apply that here. In the culture which it was written, it was not possible to have a long term, commited, co habiting relationship that was not a marriage. If you had sex you were either married or with a prostitute / fornicating / pornia. In modern western culture this is not the case. The key values that the church holds about commitment, love respect etc can all be carried out in a non married relationship, so the church can "bless" or sanction that relationship with no problem when the couple have the funds or whatever to have their wedding day. The very fact that basically no Christian ministers outside of some v traditional denominations object should be your cue that maybe you're not correct on this.

But what has God done since these unnatural events thousands of years ago? We now have the technology to study any new miraculous doings .

At what point was it decided that "fornication" means specifically p.i.v. sex that occurs before formal vows are exchanged?

What Jesus said on the topic is that if a man has sex with a woman he isn't married to, he should marry her. This is was basic bit of standing up for women's rights at the time as a woman who had had sex, even if unwillingly, was doomed to be unmarriagable and to live in destitution. Jesus's commandment isn't ideal in some circumstances but it was a more liberal view than the prevailing culture.

This could be interpreted that in God's eyes, the start of the physical sexual relationship should be considered as tantamount to marriage, and that if you are having a physical sexual relationship then you should get married, but it's not specifically sinful for the marriage to take place after the commencement of the physical sexual relationship.

In this context, the meaning of Fornication could be deemed to be indulging in physical sexual relationships with no commitment, no expectations or even hopes of marriage. Someone whose sexual ethics are to date for a longish time without having sex, and who only starts having sex when they are reasonably convinced that this is "the real thing" is not committing that sin, even if they start living together while they save up for a great wedding day.

But even if that's wrong, the "sin" is attached to the breakup of the previous sexual relationship that didn't lead to marriage. If that was fornication, then that is something attached to that previous relationship. The current relationship, which is being celebrated in the church ceremony, is therefore by definition not fornication because the marriage ceremony is taking place.

Most churches expect couples getting married to do some kind of marriage preparation classes with the minister. This would usually include an opportunity to reflect on the hurt and sin and damage caused by each person's previous relationships before coming to this point, which would be individually and sensitively handled rather than having a one-size-fits-all teaching because some people will come to marriage from a history that includes being abused, and even Jesus's teaching as above should not be interpreted as being a command for a woman to marry an abuser. But where appropriate the minister will lead the couple through a process of repentance and healing, which onlookers will not be updated about.

Fortunately, God's love and forgiveness is a lot bigger than some bible-believers would like it to be. My biggest objection to your OP @onlytwo is the implied suggestion that sinners should be excluded from the sacraments of the church, and that if there was some kind of sexual immorality in the past of one or both members of a couple, that this creates for them an irredeemable status that means they should be excluded. That concept is way more heretically opposed to the teachings of Jesus than the nuances of the exact meaning of the word fornication.

Yes, I do feel like I have a better understanding of how different people see this, even if I still do not agree with all the perspectives shared. Hearing how others reconcile their beliefs with their choices has given me more insight into why many Christians today think and live the way they do.

I appreciate everyone who took the time to explain their views.

I understand what you are saying about the cultural context of the Bible, and it is true that in ancient times there was no social category for a long-term, committed sexual relationship outside of marriage. But that is not just a cultural accident. It reflects the biblical principle that sex and lifelong commitment are meant to go together in marriage, not be separated.

The idea that modern cohabitation can provide the same commitment, love, and respect as marriage might seem reasonable, but it overlooks that biblical marriage is not just about human promises; it is about entering a covenant before God. The fact that many ministers today do not object does not prove biblical teaching has changed. It shows how much churches have adapted to cultural norms, sometimes at the cost of faithfulness to Scripture.

Churches blessing relationships that explicitly go against the clear biblical standard of sex within marriage undermines the church’s role in calling people to live according to God’s design, not just what feels acceptable in modern culture. The consistency of historic Christian teaching across centuries and cultures carries far more weight than the silence or compromise of some modern ministers.

I absolutely agree that Jesus showed compassion for people’s circumstances and upheld women’s dignity in a culture that often devalued them. However, Scripture consistently teaches that sex is meant to be within a lifelong covenant of marriage, not just with an intention or hope of future commitment. The idea that sex creates marriage in God’s eyes does not align with the broader biblical witness, which distinguishes between sexual activity and the formal, public covenant of marriage.

The word fornication, translated from the Greek “porneia,” was understood by both Jewish and early Christian communities to include all sexual activity outside the marriage covenant. This interpretation was not invented later but has been consistently held by the church since the first centuries. The consistent teaching was that premarital sex, even with intentions of commitment, fell outside God’s design because it separated physical union from the binding public promise of marriage.

I absolutely agree that God’s forgiveness is vast and that past sins do not make anyone irredeemable or unworthy of grace. But extending forgiveness is not the same as redefining sin as acceptable. The church’s role is to offer both grace and truth: compassion and forgiveness for past failures, alongside a clear call to live according to God’s standards going forward. Suggesting that calling sin what it is means excluding people misunderstands the point; true repentance is not about being cast out but about recognising where we fall short and seeking to live differently.

I am not saying sinners should be excluded from the sacraments, but that the church should not pretend sin is not sin in order to make everyone comfortable. Jesus welcomed sinners but also told them, “Go and sin no more.” That balance of grace and holiness is what the church should aim to uphold.

What was marriage back then? A blessing given ? How do those magical words make sex between two people ok?