Is fornication sinful?

[Hatman 🍁]

How is this even close?

I resent people suggesting that my common law relationship is sinful in any way.

[bedstuy]

How is this even close?

I resent people suggesting that my common law relationship is sinful in any way.

I think most people aren't arguing that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong, they're arguing that it's sinful.  Sinful is something apart from morally wrong.  I think it means something like, God doesn't like it.

So, a religious fundamentalist might say that sex outside of marriage can be perfectly fine from a moral perspective as far as earthly reasoning goes, but God said it's prohibited.  We as puny humans might not understand why God hates sex outside marriage, gay people, women, music, dancing or shellfish, but according to a fundamentalist, we just listen to the minutia of the scriptures above our common sense.  That's one of the big problems with taking religion too seriously.  Religious people in general need to cool their jets with these black and white pronouncements about what is forbidden by their Gods.

[Del Tachi]

Such is the problem we arrive at when the prevailing social attitude (even among religiously-minded people) is that "love" is somehow a prerequisite to marriage rather than something that has to be imperfectly developed within marriage over the course of several decades.  That's why the idea of "falling" into love has always baffled me.  Love is not like something that you just wander into one day.  The very notion that everyone has a "Mr./Ms. Right" out there and all it takes to fall in love is for that person to come bouncing into your life one day is something that brings with it a whole host of problems.  

Not to get too personal here, but a anecdote to probably in order.  Once upon a time, I believed that I was "in love" with somebody, and, from all outward appearances, nobody would argue otherwise.  Of course, I had been in other relationships before but this one was notably different than all of the rest due to this "love" component.  This person that I loved and I honestly thought that we would be spending the rest of our lives together, and neither one of us could imagine otherwise.  However, through a course of events which I will not detail for the sake of brevity and my own privacy (however, please don't this these events were typical "high school relationship drama" type stuff, but rather something that occurred on a deeper, more intellectual and even more spiritual plane), it came to pass one day that I was no longer in love with that person.  Repeat.  I was in loved with somebody, but now I no longer am.

Do you see the problem?

The idea of "falling out of love" with somebody is honestly something that is quite alien to most people because its not ever represented in the books we read, television shows we watch, or uplifting chain emails we receive.  Based on everything that I had been taught to expect about love, I was under the impression that all it would take to set my life on a course of eternal relationship bliss was that one, special person to show-up to make me "fall" in "love".  Instead, I loved somebody, I was happy for a time with that person, I stopped loving that person, and now I am once again happy without that person.  Prior, that had never occurred to me as a possible outcome because we're taught that love is suppose to be "forever" - I thought that once I had fallen in love with somebody, a free man I would never be again because I would always be in love with that person even if I didn't want to be.  

We're taught that you become committed to somebody because you love him, not that your love for somebody actually comes as a result of you being committed to him or her.  That's why children love their parents and parents love their children, not because they just happened to be a "special someone" but because their exists a strong, symbiotic commitment between a parent and child.  Taking that into consideration, the whole idea of romantic love being any different than familial or agape love is completely thrown out the window.  However, perhaps it should be.


Now, what does that have to do with fortification?  

Let's stop equating love with marriage for starters because, quite simply, we've distorted the meaning of love to such a degree that we've actually made it into a selfish undertaking.  It's about us - our feelings and our happiness (or even about someone else's feelings or happiness) or, even worse, about simply "liking" somebody - instead of about developing and upholding a commitment.  

That's why I don't think God intended for romantic love (as we commonly understand it) to be the basis of a life-long, happy marriage.  Therefore, how could one argue that sex between "loving" couples outside of marriage somehow exists on the same level as that between a husband and wife?  


 

[afleitch]

How is this even close?

I resent people suggesting that my common law relationship is sinful in any way.

That's because you and I live in colour and not in black and white.

[DC Al Fine]

That chart is kinda misleading ... people think it means "oh, condoms only work 98% of the time," and think that condoms fail once every 50 times even if used correctly.

It means that couples who have sex regularly for a year have a 2% chance of getting pregnant if they correct use a condom every time. The odds of getting pregnant with a single sexual encounter while using a condom are far less than 2%.

Let me add that I'm fully aware you didn't try to make the "2% of the time you still get pregnant with a condom!" argument, but people on your side make that false argument pretty often, so I felt the need to point it out.

Wouldn't the average use numbers be more relevant? Yes, some of it is due to lack of education (especially with condoms I imagine), but human error is a huge component here. A hypothetical female you might remember to take her pill everyday. Her airheaded friend who forgets her homework constantly might not

[DC Al Fine]

How is this even close?

I resent people suggesting that my common law relationship is sinful in any way.

I think most people aren't arguing that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong, they're arguing that it's sinful.  Sinful is something apart from morally wrong.  I think it means something like, God doesn't like it.

So, a religious fundamentalist might say that sex outside of marriage can be perfectly fine from a moral perspective as far as earthly reasoning goes, but God said it's prohibited.  We as puny humans might not understand why God hates sex outside marriage, gay people, women, music, dancing or shellfish, but according to a fundamentalist, we just listen to the minutia of the scriptures above our common sense.  That's one of the big problems with taking religion too seriously.  Religious people in general need to cool their jets with these black and white pronouncements about what is forbidden by their Gods.

When you're done beating up that strawman you really ought to address some actual arguments.

[bedstuy]

How is this even close?

I resent people suggesting that my common law relationship is sinful in any way.

I think most people aren't arguing that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong, they're arguing that it's sinful.  Sinful is something apart from morally wrong.  I think it means something like, God doesn't like it.

So, a religious fundamentalist might say that sex outside of marriage can be perfectly fine from a moral perspective as far as earthly reasoning goes, but God said it's prohibited.  We as puny humans might not understand why God hates sex outside marriage, gay people, women, music, dancing or shellfish, but according to a fundamentalist, we just listen to the minutia of the scriptures above our common sense.  That's one of the big problems with taking religion too seriously.  Religious people in general need to cool their jets with these black and white pronouncements about what is forbidden by their Gods.

When you're done beating up that strawman you really ought to address some actual arguments.

What actual arguments?  I haven't heard any in this thread.  I've heard a lot of sanctimonious virgins wringing their hands about nothing.

Yes, sex can result in pregnancy, STIs and an achy brakey heart.  You have bad experiences in life and you make mistakes.  You all are so afraid of life that you're trying to make the complexity of life go away.  Unfortunately, nothing makes the complexity of life go away.  Looking to fundamentalist religion for easy answers creates plenty of problems of its own, like guilt, sadness, fear, loveless marriages, etc. 

Sex is fun, it's one of the main pleasures of life.  It's perfectly healthy when you start having safe-sex when you're emotionally ready for it.  That's what any doctor or sex-ed class will tell you.  It's hard for me to conceive of any reason that sex outside marriage is a priori wrong.

[DC Al Fine]

Today, it's perfectly normal and healthy to have pre-marital sex.  In fact, it's quite strange to abstain from pre-marital sex.

Everyone is doing it? What on earth does popularity have to do with morality? I hear incest is quite popular in some parts, but it's still wrong to bang your siblings.

Pre-marital sex is tantamount to incest?  That's hilarious.

You argue that premarital sex is ok because its "normal". How would incest be any different if it was normal?

Did you know the average age of first marriage is 27?  Who is going to wait until they're 27 to have sex?  That's nuts. Sex and relationships are so important to being happy and having a good quality of life.  It's waaay too important to sacrifice at the altar of Taliban-like religious asceticism.

Indeed it is nuts. It's also completely irrrelevant to my point. Why is the median marriage age 27? In part because we are in a secular culture in which pre-marital sex is a given.  Ultra-Conservative Christians structure their lives differently. For example: the median marriage age in my congregation is about 21. Heck, my sister in law got married at 18.

As St. Paul said "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." It's your culture that makes waiting until marriage difficult, not mine.

I think under 25 is usually too young to get married.  You don't generally have a solid job or your education completed, and you're not anywhere close to emotionally mature.  You also need to figure out what you need in a relationship and dating a number of people is important for that.  If you marry someone at 18, you're likely to make a mistake because you're woefully inexperienced in intimate relationships.  It's just better to date for a few years, have some experience before you take a step like that.  You don't want to have a failed marriage by 25 or 30, that's for sure.

Again, why are these cultural trends so? In part because pre-marital sex is easily accessible. There are paths out there in which men can support a family from a very young age, say 20 onwards.

Furthermore, difficulty has vary little to do with morality. Indeed, if "it's haaaarrrrddd" is a legitimate cop-out, what are you to do when evil stares you in the face?

[bedstuy]

Today, it's perfectly normal and healthy to have pre-marital sex.  In fact, it's quite strange to abstain from pre-marital sex.

Everyone is doing it? What on earth does popularity have to do with morality? I hear incest is quite popular in some parts, but it's still wrong to bang your siblings.

Pre-marital sex is tantamount to incest?  That's hilarious.

You argue that premarital sex is ok because its "normal". How would incest be any different if it was normal?

Did you know the average age of first marriage is 27?  Who is going to wait until they're 27 to have sex?  That's nuts. Sex and relationships are so important to being happy and having a good quality of life.  It's waaay too important to sacrifice at the altar of Taliban-like religious asceticism.

Indeed it is nuts. It's also completely irrrelevant to my point. Why is the median marriage age 27? In part because we are in a secular culture in which pre-marital sex is a given.  Ultra-Conservative Christians structure their lives differently. For example: the median marriage age in my congregation is about 21. Heck, my sister in law got married at 18.

As St. Paul said "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." It's your culture that makes waiting until marriage difficult, not mine.

I think under 25 is usually too young to get married.  You don't generally have a solid job or your education completed, and you're not anywhere close to emotionally mature.  You also need to figure out what you need in a relationship and dating a number of people is important for that.  If you marry someone at 18, you're likely to make a mistake because you're woefully inexperienced in intimate relationships.  It's just better to date for a few years, have some experience before you take a step like that.  You don't want to have a failed marriage by 25 or 30, that's for sure.

Again, why are these cultural trends so? In part because pre-marital sex is easily accessible. There are paths out there in which men can support a family from a very young age, say 20 onwards.

Furthermore, difficulty has vary little to do with morality. Indeed, if "it's haaaarrrrddd" is a legitimate cop-out, what are you to do when evil stares you in the face?

If it was easy to get married at 16 or 18, pre-marital sex would still be perfectly fine.  I was just pointing out that in our society, these religious codes don't make sense.  They would never work because they comport with an ancient society, so we ought to ignore them.

So, there's two points here.  One, taking these black and white moral laws from antiquity is bonkers.  And, two, sex is not by its nature wrong or extremely dangerous.  Sex is something that you need to be careful about, but safe-sex with two or three consenting adults is basically fine.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, especially when we consider what tends to happen to the children produced in such unions.

I was a child born out of wedlock. My parents had been together for a couple years, but they didn't get married until I was almost 5. I like to think I turned out okay, and my parents are fortunately still together.

To answer the question here, no, I do not think so.

To me, that doesn't sound like fornication, just a couple who chose to wait a while before having the State recognize their union under the law.

How is this even close?

I resent people suggesting that my common law relationship is sinful in any way.

Considering how having the state recognize all marriages is a fairly recent phenomenon, anyone who suggests sex in a common law relationship is fornication, doesn't know what they are talking about.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

Well, I for one haven't, and in all honesty sex has become less and less appealing to me as time goes on, probably because I'm becoming less idle than I used to be and have better goals to think about.  So, whether I die a virgin or not is of zero concern to me.  I don't see how that discredits an honest, personal opinion, though.

As someone who was in your camp until recently, let me say that when someone special invades the camp of celibacy and drags you away into the camp of intimacy, I think you'll likely find that your only regret at that time will be that you weren't invaded sooner.

[Simfan34]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

Well, I for one haven't, and in all honesty sex has become less and less appealing to me as time goes on, probably because I'm becoming less idle than I used to be and have better goals to think about.  So, whether I die a virgin or not is of zero concern to me.  I don't see how that discredits an honest, personal opinion, though.

As someone who was in your camp until recently, let me say that when someone special invades the camp of celibacy and drags you away into the camp of intimacy, I think you'll likely find that your only regret at that time will be that you weren't invaded sooner.

That sounds romantic and cute and all but I think the Bible, not to mention the Church, is very clear about this. It'd be nice and all but I think it's all very cut and dry. Very cut and dry.

Do I like it? Not particularly. Am I morally upstanding about this? I don't know. It's a conflict.

[Meursault]

"Sin" is an imbecility.

[Meursault]

Also, how is it there are so many middle-aged virgins here? Politics should not be an atavistic religion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, how is it there are so many middle-aged virgins here? Politics should not be an atavistic religion.

Someone should tell Lindsey Graham that.

[Simfan34]

Please respond.

[Never]

Why are you guys assuming that sex will result in pregnancy?  Ever heard of birth control?  Gay people?

As for using the Bible to say that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, that's thoroughly misguided.  The Bible was written in an entirely different context when people treated women like chattel, lived in small villages and had no birth control.  In that context, it makes sense from a societal  point of view to restrict sex to married couples. 

Today, it's perfectly normal and healthy to have pre-marital sex.  In fact, it's quite strange to abstain from pre-marital sex.  Did you know the average age of first marriage is 27?  Who is going to wait until they're 27 to have sex?  That's nuts.  Sex and relationships are so important to being happy and having a good quality of life.  It's waaay too important to sacrifice at the altar of Taliban-like religious asceticism.

Wait, so we shouldn't cite the Bible as the basis for our views in the Religion & Philosophy section?

Women were fairly treated in the New Testament, with Jesus viewing them as mentally equal to men.

Yes, the Bible was written in a culture very different from the one we live in, but right and wrong transcend cultural boundaries.

Just because it is common for a society to allow premarital sex doesn't mean that it is right. Infanticide (as in babies being killed after birth), was common and tolerated in the Roman Empire and a great deal of the ancient world, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable in their culture or ours.

[bedstuy]

Why are you guys assuming that sex will result in pregnancy?  Ever heard of birth control?  Gay people?

As for using the Bible to say that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, that's thoroughly misguided.  The Bible was written in an entirely different context when people treated women like chattel, lived in small villages and had no birth control.  In that context, it makes sense from a societal  point of view to restrict sex to married couples. 

Today, it's perfectly normal and healthy to have pre-marital sex.  In fact, it's quite strange to abstain from pre-marital sex.  Did you know the average age of first marriage is 27?  Who is going to wait until they're 27 to have sex?  That's nuts.  Sex and relationships are so important to being happy and having a good quality of life.  It's waaay too important to sacrifice at the altar of Taliban-like religious asceticism.

Wait, so we shouldn't cite the Bible as the basis for our views in the Religion & Philosophy section?

Women were fairly treated in the New Testament, with Jesus viewing them as mentally equal to men.

Yes, the Bible was written in a culture very different from the one we live in, but right and wrong transcend cultural boundaries.

Just because it is common for a society to allow premarital sex doesn't mean that it is right. Infanticide (as in babies being killed after birth), was common and tolerated in the Roman Empire and a great deal of the ancient world, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable in their culture or ours.

You're not supposed to take the Bible as literal rules that apply to every situation.  It's an ancient book written by fallible people.  Whether you're a Christian or not, you ought to look at the spirit of what the Bible means in the context of modernity, and not the letter of what it says.  Trying to follow everything to the letter is called being a religious fundamentalist and you see how that turns out when you look at the Middle East right now. 

I agree that infanticide is terrible, but not because God thinks so.  After all, I'm almost certain there's no such thing as a God.  But, in any case, we need to decide what's just, fair and moral in our social relations ourselves.  God is a concept that ought to give you spiritual solace and a place to eat donuts at a church every now and then, it should't be a handbook for your life.  Sex is way too complicated a subject to abdicate our reasoning and our lives to fundamentalist religion.

[memphis]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

^^^^^^
This thread is mostly about virgins trying to make themselves feel morally superior. The mere idea of "sinfulness", and, indeed, the concept of a unified and ideologically consistent Bible have clearly been constructed to control the thoughts and actions of dumbs.

[Simfan34]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

Your attempted person-shaming is entirely beyond the point. Do I need to have taken krokodil in order for my opinion of it to be worthwhile, or to be an alcoholic to have an opinion of alcoholism?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How many people who have posted here have had sex?

Your attempted person-shaming is entirely beyond the point. Do I need to have taken krokodil in order for my opinion of it to be worthwhile, or to be an alcoholic to have an opinion of alcoholism?

Those are hardly comparable.  Yet, while I don't think that was the point that Andrew was trying to make, I can easily see where it comes across as if he were saying that anyone who has had sex wouldn't consider fornication a sin.

[Never]

Why are you guys assuming that sex will result in pregnancy?  Ever heard of birth control?  Gay people?

As for using the Bible to say that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, that's thoroughly misguided.  The Bible was written in an entirely different context when people treated women like chattel, lived in small villages and had no birth control.  In that context, it makes sense from a societal  point of view to restrict sex to married couples. 

Today, it's perfectly normal and healthy to have pre-marital sex.  In fact, it's quite strange to abstain from pre-marital sex.  Did you know the average age of first marriage is 27?  Who is going to wait until they're 27 to have sex?  That's nuts.  Sex and relationships are so important to being happy and having a good quality of life.  It's waaay too important to sacrifice at the altar of Taliban-like religious asceticism.

Wait, so we shouldn't cite the Bible as the basis for our views in the Religion & Philosophy section?

Women were fairly treated in the New Testament, with Jesus viewing them as mentally equal to men.

Yes, the Bible was written in a culture very different from the one we live in, but right and wrong transcend cultural boundaries.

Just because it is common for a society to allow premarital sex doesn't mean that it is right. Infanticide (as in babies being killed after birth), was common and tolerated in the Roman Empire and a great deal of the ancient world, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable in their culture or ours.

You're not supposed to take the Bible as literal rules that apply to every situation.  It's an ancient book written by fallible people.  Whether you're a Christian or not, you ought to look at the spirit of what the Bible means in the context of modernity, and not the letter of what it says.  Trying to follow everything to the letter is called being a religious fundamentalist and you see how that turns out when you look at the Middle East right now. 

I agree that infanticide is terrible, but not because God thinks so.  After all, I'm almost certain there's no such thing as a God.  But, in any case, we need to decide what's just, fair and moral in our social relations ourselves.  God is a concept that ought to give you spiritual solace and a place to eat donuts at a church every now and then, it should't be a handbook for your life.  Sex is way too complicated a subject to abdicate our reasoning and our lives to fundamentalist religion.

Well, if you don't believe that there is a God, I don't think that you can guide a Christian like me on how to interpret the Bible... though you are definitely entitled to your own opinions about fornication. As a Christian, I do in fact view the Bible as a handbook for my life that is applicable to a significant number of situations, and if that makes me a religious fundamentalist, so be it. You said that I should look at the "spirit of the Bible", but the Bible would mean nothing to me if there is no such thing as God. I do understand that I am to apply the Bible based on the setting I face as a twenty-first century American, but that doesn't mean that I should accept fornication because America is a different culture from the one in which the Bible was written. Saying that we should accept fornication because it is common practice in America is what I consider moral relativism, and I cannot endorse that as I consider doing so to be a threat to my relationship with God.

You said that you agree infanticide is terrible, but if you aren't basing that on a higher power, what are you basing it on? Your own reasoning? It's a good thing to think for yourself, but something isn't terrible just because an individual feels that it is.

If as a human race we decide what is morally just by ourselves, we will inevitably make mistakes. There are no morally perfect people. For me, sex is too important of a life issue to assume that I don't need any spiritual guidance from Christ on it.  God is way more than donuts and orange juice on Sunday morning at church.

[Del Tachi]

I guess my post got TL;DR'ed?

[bedstuy]

Well, if you don't believe that there is a God, I don't think that you can guide a Christian like me on how to interpret the Bible... though you are definitely entitled to your own opinions about fornication. As a Christian, I do in fact view the Bible as a handbook for my life that is applicable to a significant number of situations, and if that makes me a religious fundamentalist, so be it. You said that I should look at the "spirit of the Bible", but the Bible would mean nothing to me if there is no such thing as God. I do understand that I am to apply the Bible based on the setting I face as a twenty-first century American, but that doesn't mean that I should accept fornication because America is a different culture from the one in which the Bible was written. Saying that we should accept fornication because it is common practice in America is what I consider moral relativism, and I cannot endorse that as I consider doing so to be a threat to my relationship with God.

You're misconstruing what I said. 

The Bible is relevant to any situation, but not specifically in a rule-based way.  You ought to take the spirit of Christianity, which is kindness, caring for poor and disadvantaged people, honesty, egalitarianism, loving your family, etc.  You shouldn't take the specific ancient rules and apply them to your life.  After all, God didn't write the Bible.  Nobody believes that, right?

And, no, I'm not a moral relativist.  I believe in fixed morality, but with every morality judgement taking into account the facts and circumstances of the situation. 

You said that you agree infanticide is terrible, but if you aren't basing that on a higher power, what are you basing it on? Your own reasoning? It's a good thing to think for yourself, but something isn't terrible just because an individual feels that it is.

I'm not the only person that thinks murder is generally wrong. 

If as a human race we decide what is morally just by ourselves, we will inevitably make mistakes. There are no morally perfect people. For me, sex is too important of a life issue to assume that I don't need any spiritual guidance from Christ on it.  God is way more than donuts and orange juice on Sunday morning at church.

Whatever people do, they'll make mistakes.  But, I don't believe in these ironclad rules and lawmaking done by deities.  A practical morality that is based on modern understandings of sexuality, health and family is always debatable and fraught, but it's superior to the barbarism and puritanism of the Bible.  And, we see that today.  If you look at these so-called religious people, they tend to be the biggest sexual deviants.

[Simfan34]

I guess my post got TL;DR'ed?

I'll admit to not entirely understanding it. If not love, then what is the basis of marriage? Are you saying that it is sex? Because, at least to me, the idea of the basis of marriage being its monopoly over sexual activity strikes me as very, well... bad.