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?

We largely do the same things, though. I do my best to live a full life in which I behave ethically and fairly towards my fellow human beings, to take care of the earth, to enjoy existence to the fullest — but without the carrot of an eternal reward or the stick of eternal damnation. I think it’s enormously childish that you think you require these things to try to be good.

Yep. I think I live a pretty good life. I help out at the local foodbank, the local animal and wildlife rescues, and donate a percentage of my income to charity. I’m a vegan. I’ll help out anyone I can when I can. I’ve never cheated on anyone or broken the law. I try not to judge, and feel remorse if I fall short. But I don’t believe in god.

Some people argue that living a good and kind life without the threat of god, makes you a better person than those who need god to compel them to be good because they’re doing so freely.

I have two friends (sisters) who are Muslims. They don’t eat pork but they don’t wear head coverings either. Live and let live I say.

Well, it’s a bit more adult as an ethics, isn’t it? You’re not in it for the hope of a reward in the afterlife, or out of fear of divine judgement damnation. There’s no parent-figure in the sky issuing brownie points or demerits.

You’re just doing what you do because you think it’s right to be fair, just and charitable, to live carefully on the earth, minimise the suffering of fellow-creatures and to help them out when you can.

That’s a good point, and I agree that in human relationships, having clear facts can help build trust and authenticity. But from a Christian perspective, a relationship with God involves not just knowing about Him but choosing to trust and love Him, even when we don’t have every answer or all the certainty we might want. That trust, Christians believe, is an essential part of faith.

It’s not that God wants us to be ignorant; He gives signs, experiences, and reasons to believe, but He also wants our relationship with Him to come from a free, willing heart, not just a reaction to undeniable proof. If His reality were as obvious as the sun in the sky, many would go through the motions without ever truly wanting a relationship.

You’re right that God would know who is sincere, but Christians believe the process of seeking, questioning, and choosing to trust is what shapes a genuine relationship.

I completely agree that the scenario you describe, where someone abuses a child but technically follows a rule about marriage, is abhorrent and absolutely contrary to what Christianity teaches about love, justice, and the value of every person. Christian sexual ethics are not just about waiting for marriage as a checkbox, but about honouring others, protecting the vulnerable, and expressing love in a way that reflects God’s goodness.

The idea that someone could exploit a child and still be right with God because they “married” them goes against the heart of Scripture, which repeatedly condemns injustice, exploitation, and harming the innocent. True Christian teaching calls for sexual ethics rooted in love, respect, and the inherent worth of every person, not legalistic loopholes.

I understand your concern about teachings that seem out of step with modern culture. But I believe the best of Christian faith is not about outdated rules, but about calling us to a higher standard of love and respect that should protect children and all people from harm.

I’m not sure how that example is relevant to this discussion. The question here is about how Christians reconcile premarital sex with the teachings of their own faith, not about how people in other religions pick and choose which practices they follow.

Of course, everyone makes personal choices about which aspects of their beliefs they practice, but the discussion is specifically about whether redefining clear Christian teachings on sexual ethics aligns with or contradicts what Christianity has historically taught.

From my perspective, faith in God is not about needing a “carrot” or “stick” to behave well, but about responding to a relationship with the One I believe created us and knowing there is ultimate justice and purpose behind life.

For me, it’s not fear of punishment or hope for reward that motivates goodness, but gratitude and love for God, which I believe calls me to care for others and the world more deeply. I believe faith brings meaning and hope that go beyond what this life alone can offer.

Being religious doesn’t mean that you are likely to care for others and the world more deeply.

If someone has a deep sense of God consciousness, truly feeling connected to a higher purpose and seeing the divine in others, it can inspire a strong sense of compassion, care and responsibility for people and the world.

Of course, religion alone doesn’t guarantee kindness and there are people of faith who don’t act with love just as there are non-religious people. But for some, genuine God consciousness can absolutely lead to greater empathy and a desire to do good.

It’s an example of a religion moving with the times.
You can’t wholeheartedly follow a religion and be okay with some of the content.
Some bits are outdated and ridiculous.
Keeping to morality and the law is far more important in today’s society than what a holy book teaches

The world has changed, religion needs to adapt.
As long as they are faithful to each other the it's OK

I’m happy that I ‘do good’ and don’t need a religion in order to want to this.

I understand why you see it that way, and I agree that some parts of religious texts can seem outdated or difficult to apply directly today. But from a Christian perspective, faith is not about picking and choosing what feels relevant, but about trusting that God’s standards are timeless even if they challenge us or go against cultural trends.

It’s true that laws and social norms matter, but morality rooted only in what society accepts can shift dramatically over time and place. What was considered moral or legal in one era or culture can be deeply unjust by another’s standards. That’s why many believers see lasting value in the moral guidance of their faith. It offers an anchor beyond changing human opinions.

Updating faith teachings simply to match what is popular risks turning religion into a reflection of society rather than a challenge to live by higher principles. While laws help us coexist peacefully, they can’t replace the deeper moral compass that faith can provide.

I understand the desire to adapt faith to fit the modern world, but if religion constantly changes its core teachings to match cultural trends, it loses any claim to offer timeless truth or moral guidance beyond shifting human opinions. The point of faith is not to mirror society, but to call people to a higher standard rooted in something greater than ourselves.

Being faithful to each other is important, but from a Christian perspective, faithfulness alone does not make something right if it still goes against what God has revealed about the purpose of sex and marriage. The biblical view is that sex is meant to take place within marriage, where commitment is publicly declared and the relationship is grounded in a covenant before God.

Changing core teachings just because the world has changed turns religion into a reflection of society rather than a guide to living in a way that honours God. True faith challenges us to rise above what is easiest or most popular, not simply to adapt to it.

I agree - it’s so antiquated. As if sex before marriage is a sin (don’t agree with the concept of sin)

See you on the other side 😉

It’s only a biblical view - no one is hurt (exactly the opposite) by consensual pre marital sex. What about those who don’t want to get married but are in a long term loving relationship, should they never have sex?

Neither you are I are going anywhere other than a hole in the ground. That I guarantee

I'd be interested to know @onlytwo - if a woman were to stay virgin until she married, and was faithfully married for a number of years but that marriage ended and she got divorced with no adultery on her part, and then a number of years later she met a new man and married him without having sex with him before her second marriage marriage - Jesus himself said that a woman who does this nevertheless commits adultery, and the sin for this woman is no less than for the couple who have sex before marriage. However that second marriage would be allowed to take place in church. It used to be forbidden, but after very careful consideration of the ethical and theological issues, the church decided that it should be allowed. Do you see a difference or is the church just as wrong to extend that grace to divorcees?

That’s an important and challenging question. Jesus’ teaching in passages like Matthew 19:9 makes it clear that divorce and remarriage can involve adultery, and Christians have rightly wrestled with how to apply this in a broken world where marriages sometimes fail despite one person’s faithfulness.

The key difference I see is that in the case of divorce and remarriage, the church recognises the deep complexity and pain that come with the end of a marriage and seeks to offer pastoral care and grace to those who have experienced it, especially if they were not the ones who broke the marriage covenant. Allowing a church wedding in these cases is not an endorsement of divorce as good, but an acknowledgment of human frailty and a desire to help people move forward with a new commitment before God.

In contrast, sex before marriage is a choice made before any vows or covenant are established. It does not reflect a tragic outcome like divorce can, but rather a decision to separate physical intimacy from the covenant of marriage in the first place. That’s why I believe the two situations are different: one deals with the aftermath of a broken promise, the other with how we approach making that promise in the first place.

That said, both situations call for grace and compassion, and neither places someone beyond God’s forgiveness or love. But extending grace to divorcees does not mean the church should redefine God’s design for sex and marriage altogether.

I will see you on the other side. That I guarantee

You do realise it’s an impossibility? Having a belief is one thing but reality and common sense needs to come into play. Many of your posts are a copy and paste and lack critical thinking

Ok no problem. I wish you well.

You have a very romanticised, unrealistic view of the church and its past@onlytwo.

As previously discussed the church, throughout most of its history has been more than happy to consecrate marriages based on political alliances rather than sacred love between two people and God. The church has also legitimised the relationships of those who have sex before marriage by conducting weddings where the bride was pregnant. Indeed many clergy considered it their duty to the child.

Abstinence is taught but it's no longer a boombastic sermon. A large part of the reason for this is that the church has lost moral authority to preach to the congregation regarding sexual ethics. The perception now is that those who preach loudest about the sins of the flesh are those most guilty of them.

Churches that practice the core beliefs of Christianity with grace, compassion, honesty and humility, do not withhold the sacrament of marriage from loving, committed couples.