Cohabitation, premarital sex, sexual morality, and Christianity

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I'm starting this as a spinoff thread from the topic here.  I have some thoughts on the matter, but it's impossible for me to come up with an answer that resonates well with all viewpoints, especially if I invoke religion-based morality.

On the question of cohabitation, I believe that it is certainly preferable to simply rushing into marriage just because people should have the basic feel of being in a committed relationship to each other.  I think that Christians should be, if anything, most supportive of cohabitation simply because it could prevent what might turn out to be a broken promise to God by those who take their vows.  That, however, is independent of the question of sex.  Sex, especially if unprotected, carries the risk of jeopardizing the life of a child whose parents opt not to get married, or worse, rush into marriage and separate shortly afterwards.  If there is practical (and not moral) reason to abstain from having a sexual relationship before marriage, then that seems to be it.

Christians, of course, have taught the value of marriage before becoming sexually involved with another person for centuries, and given that birth control is still fairly new, it makes sense.  What I inquire about is the moral reasoning behind this long-standing tradition in Christianity.  The Bible says very little about sex before marriage.  Indeed, Jesus condemns lust and speaks for man and woman "becoming one flesh," but nowhere in his sermons could I find an explicit condemnation of premarital sex.

The teaching against premarital sex appear to be ground in the teachings of Paul, who wrote, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. I say this by way of concession, not of command. wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another." (1 Corinthians 7:1-7 RSV))

This is another piece of Paul's writings that are rightfully questioned.  Aside from the fact he implies that women and men do not own their own bodies, which allows his credibility being taken into question if taken literally, what exactly is he saying?  Is he saying that marriage is necessary to discourage lustful temptation?  And if not Paul, where does the old Christian teaching of abstinence stem from?  Exactly where are teachings against premarital sex based in morality, and why other than religious reasons should people abide by it?

(For the sake of the questions, I am not referring to people who have multiple partners.  I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind abstaining from sex with one person until marriage.)

[TJ in Oregon]

It comes from the idea that the purpose for giving human sexuality at all was for procreation. Paul's writing contains numerous condemnations of sexual sin but rarely defines them because he wasn't writing in a time when people wouldn't even question the morality of premarital sex.

As for birth control, St. John Chrysostom, writing in the 4th Century, at least shows an insight into how it was considered at the time:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that I don't think birth control is actually worse than abortion and I'm not sure St. John Chrysostom does either. But he's trying to be as terse as can be in his condemnation.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Okay, TJ.  But just for the sake of argument, let's say that two people who have never gotten married have a child and that child turns out to live a healthy normal life (be that through being raised by one parent, two parents, or adoptive parents).  Are the parents still condemned because they did not take vows of marriage to each other before they had intercourse?

[Bacon King]

yeah when i was a christian and when i've dated christian girls i've noticed there's a lot of gray area you can interpret to convince your partner and yourself that you're not actually doing anything sinful

i think honestly though if God's up there and he actually did give us specific established rules to follow he wouldn't really approve of GOTCHA loophole shenanigans, and also when you get down to it the bible is pretty clear that lust and such aren't really that great.

also for a different perspective here, note that you can certainly interpret God's word how you genuinely think it should be interpreted but if you run afoul of something that's such a universal contemporary interpretation then you're going to lose out on most of the benefits of the sense of community that comes from having shared beliefs which sociologically is one of the biggest benefits of religion

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

yeah when i was a christian and when i've dated christian girls i've noticed there's a lot of gray area you can interpret to convince your partner and yourself that you're not actually doing anything sinful

i think honestly though if God's up there and he actually did give us specific established rules to follow he wouldn't really approve of GOTCHA loophole shenanigans, and also when you get down to it the bible is pretty clear that lust and such aren't really that great.

also for a different perspective here, note that you can certainly interpret God's word how you genuinely think it should be interpreted but if you run afoul of something that's such a universal contemporary interpretation then you're going to lose out on most of the benefits of the sense of community that comes from having shared beliefs which sociologically is one of the biggest benefits of religion

Well, if you believe that there are valid loopholes, then technically you're not playing a 'gotcha game' with God's law.  If deep down you know that what you're doing is wrong and you're making up exceptions to the law to get by with, then of course what you're doing would get you condemned.  Then again, the creation and abuse of loopholes is the inevitable result of legalism, which is one of the Christian ethical theories that ought to be challenged.  If you believe that the blood Christ shed on the cross erases sin, then technically you have no reason to be a legalist, though you are still expected to repent when you do wrong.  But what kind of person, Christian or not, wouldn't repent if they truly thought what they did was bad?  So you're right in that there is a lot of gray area.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The teaching against premarital sex appear to be ground in the teachings of Paul, who wrote, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. I say this by way of concession, not of command. wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another." (1 Corinthians 7:1-7 RSV))

This is another piece of Paul's writings that are rightfully questioned.  Aside from the fact he implies that women and men do not own their own bodies, which allows his credibility being taken into question if taken literally, what exactly is he saying?  Is he saying that marriage is necessary to discourage lustful temptation?  And if not Paul, where does the old Christian teaching of abstinence stem from?  Exactly where are teachings against premarital sex based in morality, and why other than religious reasons should people abide by it?

What is so incredulous about the literal meaning of Paul's words here?  Under the classical Judeo-Christian conception of marriage, husband and wife are joined in one flesh, hence the husband should not make decisions that affect his wife without considering its effect on her and the wife should not make decisions that affect her husband without considering its effect on him.

Indeed, one indication of the the antiquity of the view of they being one flesh can be found in Genesis 24, specifically Genesis 24:50. Abraham's manservant has gone to Bethuel to get a wife for Isaac.  While it doesn't explicitly say so, if you read between the lines, I think the story implies Bethuel is dead (or at least incapacitated), leaving his wife and son in charge of his household, hence in verse 24:50 when it says Laban and Bethuel agree to the marriage of Rebecca to Isaac, I take Bethuel here referring to the otherwise unnamed mother of Rebecca. After all, if Bethuel himself were still alive, there would be no need at all for Laban to be involved.

Granted, you can find in the Old Testament quite a few instances of polygamy, yet I can't think of one that did not cause additional troubles.

The primary non-religious reason for faithful monogamy is economic.  The society was set up so that men were the primary economic producers.  If children were to be well provided for, they needed a father who could do the provisioning for both them and their mother.  Marriage was thus in one sense a contract in which a man agreed to provide for the well-being of a woman and her non-adult children.  Being faithful helped to ensure that a man would not incur more obligations than he could afford to keep.  Similarly, if a woman were to be promiscuous so that no man could be certain he was the father of her children, both she and her child might well end up without support.  Note that the expectation that a father would care for his children until they were adult, along with a society that never saw a woman becoming a responsible independent adult also explains why parents had to approve of matches.  Giving a daughter in marriage to a son-in-law who couldn't provide for her and her children would add rather than subtract from the burdens on the father.  In a society in which the safety net left a lot to be desired, fidelity in relationships was plain common economic sense.

[DemPGH]

Something happened to "Be fruitful and multiply."

Ah-ha, marriage became an institution. The way I understand marriage is that you have to start with the fact that when it was brought about as an institution (it's a holy order, I think), there was no formal knowledge except what the Church taught. So, you went there to be edified and literally to learn. But if you are married in the Church, you raise your kids in the Church, etc., it's the ultimate form of social control.

I'm admittedly new school in my thinking, and while I live a disciplined lifestyle, I think marriage is not for children and not for church and not so two people can now suddenly live together, but rather because there is another human being who enriches your life to where you literally want to spend every day with them and for whom you have romantic feelings. That's why you get married (tax issues and wedding gifts aside ), and to say that the Bible says this or that so we have to apply it the present is going to result in a lot of problems because the cultures are so different.

There are marriages of convenience where people learn to tolerate each other and have kids, and that's fine, but it sure doesn't work for all of us.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The thing about "be fruitful and multiply" is that it was written at a time when the world population was slender, and thus there was an urgent need for people to start families at a young age and have an abundance of children so that the human race could survive.  Now that is obviously not the case, which is why I think it is necessary to question if and why these old moral laws regarding sex should be acknowledged today.  I think Ernest and TJ did a good job addressing some of my concerns, but I think the traditionalists have the burden of proving why we should adhere to these strict laws now that humans live under completely different circumstances.

"The Bible says it's right" obviously isn't a sufficient answer to the question because it overlooks the reason for why the law was written in the first place.  So of course there has to be practical justification for the law.  Otherwise, why are we following it?

But back to the original question; I suppose if one believes that the use of contraceptives is akin to murder or 'getting in the way of God's plan,' the teachings are sound.  I don't agree with that sentiment, but I can see why strict Catholics and Protestants hold these laws to be important in modern day.

[DemPGH]

They're trying to control sex to their benefit, but maybe that's not being argued.

But back to the original question; I suppose if one believes that the use of contraceptives is akin to murder or 'getting in the way of God's plan,' the teachings are sound.  I don't agree with that sentiment, but I can see why strict Catholics and Protestants hold these laws to be important in modern day.

I would say that if God wants a woman to become pregnant and to have a baby, nothing is going to stop it. God can do all things - including impregnate a virgin on his own. Fundamentalists who oppose birth control misunderstand reproduction, I think. That's probably the basis of the teaching in question.

[SonOfReason]

why do you wake me out of my slumber with idiotic claims that cohabitation is compatible with scripture?  please pick up a bible and follow along:

Creation - Gen ch2 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh"

Prior to Law of Moses - they kill a man who slept with their sister before marrying her - Gen 34:31 “Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?”

Within Law of Moses - fornicators were to be killed DT 22:20-21

NT (post Law of Moses) - Mat ch19 [Jesus reaffirms Gen ch2 definition of marriage being a sexual union between the sexes]

the jmfcst

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

why do you wake me out of my slumber with idiotic claims that cohabitation is compatible with scripture?  please pick up a bible and follow along:

Creation - Gen ch2 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh"

Prior to Law of Moses - they kill a man who slept with their sister before marrying her - Gen 34:31 “Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?”

Within Law of Moses - fornicators were to be killed DT 22:20-21

NT (post Law of Moses) - Mat ch19 [Jesus reaffirms Gen ch2 definition of marriage being a sexual union between the sexes]

the jmfcst

Hi! We've missed you. How are things?

[Bacon King]

scott bro your cognitive dissonance is so bad it brought the jmfcst back from the dead