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?

I completely agree that humans are flawed and often inconsistent. We all make mistakes, contradict ourselves, and fall short of our own standards. That’s part of what it means to be human, and it’s why forgiveness, grace, and humility are so important in any faith or worldview.

But acknowledging human imperfection doesn’t mean we should give up on striving to live according to what we believe is right. Recognising that we all “mess up” should make us more compassionate, but it shouldn’t mean abandoning the idea that there are moral standards worth aiming for.

I’m not arguing for a society of perfect rule-followers, but for honesty about the gap between what our faith teaches and how we actually live and for taking that gap seriously instead of pretending it doesn’t matter. That’s not about judging others harshly, but about encouraging integrity and real reflection on what we claim to believe.

I absolutely agree that God loves us and desires our good, and that Christians are called to have pure hearts. But Jesus and the apostles made it clear that love for God and purity of heart are not defined by our feelings alone, but by living according to God’s revealed standards. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commands” (John 14:15), showing that obedience is inseparable from love.

The idea that mature faith moves beyond what you call “petty controls” is not found anywhere in Scripture. In fact, the New Testament repeatedly warns against using freedom as an excuse to indulge desires that go against God’s design. Purity of heart is not measured by sincerity alone, but by a willingness to align our lives with God’s will, even when it challenges us.

Redefining what is right based on what feels loving or evolved to us risks turning faith into self-justification rather than a relationship rooted in trust and obedience. True spiritual maturity involves deeper understanding of God’s grace
but also deeper commitment to living by his standards, not abandoning them.

@onlytwo
I would say that in a western society religion is not rule it’s a choice.
In a modern world, I honestly think that any religious leaders or followers, who still believes that something written centuries ago, should be obeyed in its entirety is a dangerous one.

I agree that in Western societies, religion is a personal choice and not something everyone has to follow. That’s an important part of living in a free, diverse society. At the same time, for many people, faith provides a sense of community, purpose and moral guidance.

I don’t think the basic core teachings of a religion need to change, as they form the foundation of what people believe. Instead, it’s about individuals choosing how they live those teachings in today’s world, with compassion and understanding for others. Respecting religious freedom means allowing people to follow their faith’s core principles while also respecting the rights and beliefs of those around them.

Why do you care?

The difficulty with your position is that you have no other source of "truth" than your Scripture, a number of different interpretations of what that Scripture means, and no way to determine which is correct other than through the Scripture that you disagree on.

This is the "true Scotsman" argument.

You say "Christians think this."

Other Christians say "we believe otherwise."

You say "well you are not true Christians then" (or are, at least, mistaken Christians.)

You are right that tradition alone is not proof of truth, but the historic consistency of Christian teaching, the life and resurrection of Jesus, and the ongoing transformative power of his message provide compelling reasons to take the Bible seriously as more than a flawed human text.

I think you are seriously underplaying the resurrection of Jesus here.

If Jesus died and came back to life and was both god and also the son of god, then you have a very compelling reason for us to rethink everything we know. If that is true, then everything we know about physics, biology, cosmology, existence is wrong.

But the only evidence for that is the Jesus story is written in what very much appears to be no more than a flawed human text.

And a text that claims to be the ultimate book of human morality which doesn't reject slavery, but in your words "lays the foundation for its rejection." Flawed, indeed.

Early Christians could not abolish slavery in the Roman Empire overnight.

Irrelevant. I am not commenting on the actions of Christians. I am commenting on the lack of moral certainty over slavery in the Bible.

The OP is either

(1) as she says, terribly confused, with a side order of faux-naivety, or

(2) she’s just one one of those tiresome hectoring, types who like the sound of their own voices, and to whom a certain type of organised religion is terribly appealing, because of the abundance of opportunities for laying down the law under the guise of concern for others’ souls.

Personally, I think Jesus should have added an extra bit to the Sermon on the Mount. ‘Blessed are those who shut the fuck up about why their interpretation of their religion is the right one, and quietly get on with living according to their own moral precepts.’

Very eye opening thread. I e never attended a single church where it’s believed that it’s fine to live together/fornicate.
Sure it happens, but the goal is to ask for forgiveness and get oneself out of the situation asap. it’s never accepted as being ‘fine’ or an accepted ‘modern christianity’ norm.

And I’ve certainly heard it preached against several times under sexual immorality alongside pornography, adultery, etc.
Faith is a personal relationship. It’s not what the OP says on Aibu. If you are happy with your choice then you carry on.

@onlytwo good point about others claiming falling short in their faith. All Muslims I know who drink, hide the fact from their parents and wider faith community.

There’s infant school, and University.

Is it moral to marry someone you are not familiar with, as you were coerced to by an organisation of rich powerful men? Let's bung that into AI shall we to find the scripture. Proverbs 19.2 "desire without knowledge is not good, and whoever makes haste with his feet misses his way". Etc.

The bible is an interpretation of events - none of us were there to know what was and wasn’t true.
Some parts are historically correct - cities - but other parts aren’t supported by archaeological or scientific data hence why much is just a myth.
Some of the Bible stories aren’t true - if you don’t worship me, you’ll go to hell.

want the appearance of a traditional Christian wedding without intending to live according to what that wedding represents

turning something meant to be a sacred covenant into an empty ritual

whether people entering a church wedding actually intend to honour that commitment

You are getting very jumbled up. On what basis have you decided that people getting married will not honpur their marriage, simply because they lived together before marriage? It seems you are equating a monogamous sexual relationship before marriage with requiring the couple to commit adultery after marriage. In fact it is even less likely given they have already proven ongoing commitmernt to each other. If someone collects items into a basket at the shop before paying, and then pays, they are not a thief and it makes no sense to suggest they are.

People of other faiths like Islam may break the rules of their religion, but they generally acknowledge that they are falling short and do not try to claim their actions are fully acceptable within their faith. They recognise that drinking alcohol, for example, goes against Islamic teachings, even if they choose to do it.

In contrast, many Christians today openly argue that premarital sex is completely fine within their faith, not just a personal failing but something compatible with Christian teaching itself. That shift from recognising sin to redefining it as acceptable is what I find concerning, because it changes the meaning of the faith rather than acknowledging where we struggle to live up to it.

I completely agree that it is not moral to rush into marriage with someone you barely know, especially if it is forced or coerced by others. True Christian marriage is meant to be a willing, informed commitment between two people who love and respect each other, not something arranged under pressure or control. Proverbs 19:2 supports that wisdom, warning against acting without understanding.

But this does not contradict the biblical teaching that sex is meant for marriage. It highlights that marriage itself should be entered into thoughtfully and freely, with genuine commitment. The abuse of marriage by powerful individuals or institutions does not invalidate God’s design for marriage as a loving, lifelong covenant.

So yes, rushing into marriage without truly knowing your partner is unwise and unbiblical. But that does not mean sex outside of marriage is acceptable; it means marriage should be treated seriously, not as something to be entered into hastily or under coercion.

You’re right that none of us were there when the events of the Bible took place, and I agree that not every story in Scripture is meant to be read as a literal, modern-style historical account. Some parts, like parables, are clearly meant as teaching stories. But there is also strong historical and archaeological support for many of the Bible’s central events, including details about ancient cities, kingdoms, and historical figures like Pontius Pilate.

Regarding the idea of hell, it’s a common misconception that the Bible’s message is simply “worship me or burn.” In Christianity, hell is not about God vindictively sending people away for not checking the right box, but about the natural consequence of choosing separation from God, who is the source of life, love, and goodness. The Bible teaches that God desires everyone to come to repentance and be saved (2 Peter 3:9), but also respects our freedom to accept or reject him.

Ultimately, while some stories in the Bible are debated or symbolic, the core message of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is grounded in eyewitness testimony and has transformed countless lives throughout history. That’s why many find it credible, even if they acknowledge some passages are difficult to understand or reconcile.

I am not saying that everyone who lives together before marriage will inevitably dishonour their vows or commit adultery later. Many couples who cohabit go on to have faithful marriages. But from a Christian perspective, the issue is not just whether they stay committed afterward, but whether they are aligning their relationship with God’s design for marriage from the start.

Sex outside of marriage separates physical intimacy from the covenant that is supposed to protect it. While cohabitation can demonstrate commitment on a human level, it skips the public, lifelong promise before God and the community that defines marriage in biblical teaching.

Your shop analogy misses the point because marriage is not a transaction like buying groceries. It’s a covenant meant to reflect God’s faithfulness, and sex before that covenant is a significant departure from what Scripture teaches. Commitment matters, but the timing and context of that commitment matter too if we take biblical teaching seriously.

A cruel and heartless god who threatens people if they don’t worship and obey him - definitely not something I want to be associated with. Nothing is going to happen to me - what’s with the natural consequences comment?
I’ve nothing to be saved from or to repent for.

I understand why the idea of a God who judges or warns of consequences can seem harsh or unappealing, especially if it sounds like divine blackmail. But from a Christian perspective, God does not threaten for the sake of control; he reveals what happens when we choose to separate ourselves from him, who is the source of life, love, and goodness.

The concept of natural consequences is not about God arbitrarily punishing people, but about the reality that if we reject a relationship with him, we also reject the very foundation of what gives life meaning and purpose. It’s like unplugging a lamp from its power source — darkness is not a punishment, but the inevitable result of being disconnected.

Regarding repentance, Christianity teaches that everyone falls short of God’s perfect goodness, not because we are all murderers or criminals, but because pride, selfishness, and indifference damage ourselves and others. Repentance is not grovelling, but an honest acknowledgement of our flaws and a willingness to turn toward what is good, true, and loving.

You are free to disagree, of course, but the Christian message of salvation is not about fear but about an invitation into restored relationship with God, who offers forgiveness, love, and purpose.

But how is that fair or just when someone who murders, rapes and hurts people all their life can get into heaven if they repent and believe, but someone who lives a blameless life but never comes to believe, cannot? Especially when it’s been over 2000 years since god sent any “proof.” Why would people believe if they have no reason to?

That’s a deeply important question, and I understand why it seems unfair. But from a Christian perspective, salvation is not about balancing good deeds against bad deeds; it’s about whether we accept or reject a relationship with God. God’s standard is perfect holiness, and none of us meets it on our own — not even those who live outwardly good lives. That’s why grace is central: salvation is offered as a gift, not earned by performance.

The reason someone who has done terrible things can be forgiven if they genuinely repent is not because God ignores justice, but because God offers forgiveness to anyone who truly turns away from wrongdoing and seeks a relationship with Him. At the same time, someone who lives a moral life but refuses that relationship is still separated from God, not because God is cruel, but because he respects our choice to accept or reject Him.

As for proof, Christians believe that God has revealed himself throughout history in ways that give reasons to trust in his existence and character, including the transformation of countless lives and the spread of faith despite intense opposition. Faith does not mean believing without reason, but it does mean trusting in what God has made known, even when he does not force Himself on us.

Ultimately, Christianity teaches that God wants everyone to be saved, but he will not override our freedom to choose. It is a challenging message, but also one of hope: no one is beyond redemption, and everyone is invited.

I’m understand that. But I just think it shows god as being stupid, petty and thoroughly unpleasant. Like some despot who demands you bow down to him or else. I have no idea why anyone would want to follow such a deity.

As I don’t believe in any god, there are no consequences for me - I can live my life as I wish (obviously legally). Religion and worship isn’t the foundation of what gives life meaning - sounds a very negative way of looking at life.

You don’t need a religious faith to be good, true and loving.

In your opinion what is going to happen to me🤣

You still entirely miss the point. You have taken it upon yourself to judge that the "sin" of sex before marriage, will not be forgiven even when those people marry. You have personally decided that sex is the only sin that will receive no forgiveness, yet you have no special verse that tells you that, so why do you believe it?

I understand why it can look that way from the outside. The idea of a God who calls for worship and warns of consequences can seem egotistical or tyrannical. But from the Christian perspective, God is not a despot demanding blind loyalty; He is the source of life, love and goodness itself. Worship is not about inflating God’s ego but about aligning ourselves with the one who created us and knows what is truly good for us.

Just as a loving parent sets boundaries to protect a child, God gives guidance and moral standards not out of pettiness, but to lead us toward what brings lasting peace, purpose, and harmony with Him and others. Refusing that relationship is not punished arbitrarily, but leads naturally to separation from the source of all goodness. Something God wants to spare us from.

People who follow God do so because they believe he is not cruel but loving, patient, and just, and because they find meaning, hope, and transformation in relationship with Him. It is not about bowing to a dictator but responding to a loving invitation to live in a way that reflects the goodness and purpose we were made for.

But if they believe that, they believe it against all evidence to try contrary, don’t they. It’s all right there in the bible - all of his wrath and vengeance.