Does the bible say Sex before marriage is wrong?

[Aphex_Twin]

How does the "traditional christian understanding" envisage childbirth without sex?

The holy spirit comes down and we have Jesus (or the virgin Mary if you're Catholic)

 

[Mathilda]

The holy spirit comes down and we have Jesus (or the virgin Mary if you're Catholic)

Now if that was how all the babies were started, that would be omniprecense indeed

 

[Plotinus]

Pain in childbirth was God's punishment for all the women for Eve's bite of the apple. (Gen 3:16) This in my understanding implies that childbirth was part of the plan, just origianlly wasn't supposed to be painful.
How does the "traditional christian understanding" envisage childbirth without sex?

Who knows? You could equally take the verse as suggesting that childbirth itself was instituted only after the Fall, rather than that there would otherwise have been pain-free childbirth. Perhaps God was intending to make everyone out of ribs, like Eve. Or perhaps you're right and it would have been pain-free childbirth, but without sex: babies would have just popped out spontaneously, like aphids. Remember, of course, that from the fourth century onwards it was believed that Jesus' mother preserved her virginity "in parturition", meaning that Jesus was born in a miraculous fashion which left Mary physically unharmed. Perhaps something similar was imagined for prelapsarian man.

The Church Fathers imagined all kinds of odd things in this department. Augustine was convinced, for example, that Adam would have had perfect control over those parts of the body that normally seem to have a mind of their own... So Adam could have raised and lowered his bits at will! Naturally, the Fall messed that all up. Pretty audacious of Augustine, I think, to blame his impotence on the sin of Adam. I'll have to remember that one.

 

[jonatas]

Pain in childbirth was God's punishment for all the women for Eve's bite of the apple. (Gen 3:16) This in my understanding implies that childbirth was part of the plan, just origianlly wasn't supposed to be painful.
How does the "traditional christian understanding" envisage childbirth without sex?

well i don't know either.... but apparently Adam was created first anyway, and there was no such thing as woman to begin with, right ... well, i guess there's more than one creation story in Genesis from what i remember... it's hard to make sense of it all, but it doesn't seem to be very logical, does it?

as far as the creation stories go, agriculture was basically invented with Adam and Eve being kicked out of the garden as well, right? i mean apparently, that's when they had to start to work the land from what i recall.... it's like getting kicked out of Eden was the beginning of civilization... i don't know if this really answers your question ???

 

[Mathilda]

Who knows? You could equally take the verse as suggesting that childbirth itself was instituted only after the Fall, rather than that there would otherwise have been pain-free childbirth. Perhaps God was intending to make everyone out of ribs, like Eve.

Bible, new International version:

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

To me that really suggests that childbearing was already on the cards, only the amount of pain changed.

Or perhaps you're right and it would have been pain-free childbirth, but without sex: babies would have just popped out spontaneously, like aphids. Remember, of course, that from the fourth century onwards it was believed that Jesus' mother preserved her virginity "in parturition", meaning that Jesus was born in a miraculous fashion which left Mary physically unharmed. Perhaps something similar was imagined for prelapsarian man.

I'm still wondering where the idea of sex not existing before the fall came from.
I've never really heard of that before, that's why it puzzled me.

 

[Plotinus]

The Revised English Bible has "I shall give you great labour in childbearing". Unfortunately I'm not a Hebraist so I have no idea what the original really says. However, I would say that the New International Version is a notoriously unreliable translation, so I wouldn't trust much that appears in it.

As for the view that sex came into being only after the Fall, here's a quote from Jerome's famous Letter 22 to Eustochium, on virginity, in which he argues that it's all right to be married (ie, not actually sinful) but it's not as good as remaining chaste. Note, in particular, that what Jerome doesn't like is sex in general, whether married or not; what he likes is chastity in general, whether married or not.

"Be fruitful," God says, "and multiply, and replenish the earth." He who desires to replenish the earth may increase and multiply if he will. But the train to which you belong is not on earth, but in heaven. The command to increase and multiply first finds fulfilment after the expulsion from paradise, after the nakedness and the fig-leaves which speak of sexual passion. Let them marry and be given in marriage who eat their bread in the sweat of their brow; whose land brings forth to them thorns and thistles, and whose crops are choked with briars. My seed produces fruit a hundredfold. "All men cannot receive God's saying, but they to whom it is given." Some people may be eunuchs from necessity; I am one of free will. … In paradise Eve was a virgin, and it was only after the coats of skins that she began her married life.

As for where the notion of Eve's pre-Fall virginity came from, I suppose it is implied in the fact that we hear of them sleeping together only in Gen 4:1, the implication being that this was the first time. Note also that Gen 3:16 condemns Eve to desire her husband, implying that she did not do so before, or at least not in the requisite way.

 

[Mathilda]

Thank you Plotinus, very enlilghtening

 

[NINJABOO]

You know I havn't really seen anything much about it. There is some stuff in Leviticus about rape, and there is stuff everywhere about adultrey, but I don't see anything that says anything specific about Sex before marrige. I havn't looked too hard though and I still think that it is wrong, even if the Bible says nothing about it.

 

[Ciceronian]

Why would it be wrong? On what moral grounds?

 

[classical_hero]

Why would it be wrong? On what moral grounds?

What makes it right? On what moral grounds?

Since none of those who do beleive that the Bible talks about sex before marriage, but have not given a definition of what sexual immorality is.

I'll give a definition of what is sexually immoral and my conclusion to why it is so. I believe that sexual immorality is all forms of sex outside of the bounds of marriage. This also include sexual thoughts that are not part of marriage. Why have I come to that conclusion? Every time you see the Bible tlk about sexual immorality, it is always acts that occur outside of Marriage. Whenever we talk about Adultery, Incest, Beastiality, and Homosexuality, they are all acts that occur oustide of the sanctified bounds of marriage. Since that is true, it is reasonable to say that since Pre-marital sex, being outside of marriage, should also be considered sexual immorality.

This issue is not really about sexuality, but about the challenges to God's Law that sinful men make. It aslo show the lack of importance marriage is now placed in the minds of humans. It shows that with thi lack of respect of God's moral law, that society will be punished for what it is doing. Read Roman 1 and Leviticus 18 to see what i am talking about.

 

[Plotinus]

What makes it right? On what moral grounds?

The fact that it doesn't hurt anyone makes it - not necessarily "right" - but permissible.

As I pointed out earlier, you can't just define sexual immorality as sex beyond the bounds of marriage. There are at least three reasons for this.

(1) Most people would agree that there are sexual acts *within* marriage that are immoral. These include marital rape.

(2) Most people would agree that there are sexual acts *outside* marriage that are *not* immoral. These include masturbation. The Bible also features sexual acts outside marriage that are not explicitly condemned, such as Abraham sleeping with Rachel in Gen 16. The only person who doesn't suffer as a result of this is Abraham himself!

(3) For most of the sexually immoral acts described, there are clear reasons why they would be considered immoral - mainly because they hurt other people. Thus, adultery is wrong because it is a betrayal of your spouse. Incest is wrong because it hurts a child and is intrinsically abusive. Bestiality and homosexuality, in the context of the book of Leviticus, are wrong because they transgress what are seen as the natural order of things - which is why readers are also told not to shave or grow different crops in the same field. Most people today would agree that if an act is immoral it must be, at some level, because it hurts people; this is why most people would agree that incest (which, incidentally, is not condemned in the Bible) is wrong in a way that homosexuality or premarital sex are not.

To put it another way, if you really think that the main reason why incest is bad is that it is sex outside marriage, then you've got a very odd idea about how morality works.

Now, you can argue against that if you like and give reasons why you think sex outside marriage is wrong. But the fact remains that however eloquently you state them, these will be your own reasons, not the Bible's. The question asked in the thread is whether *the Bible* condemns sex outside marriage per se, and it is fairly clear that it does not.

 

[Ciceronian]

Yes Plotinus, I very much agree. The reason why sexual immorality is forbidden is becuase it harms other people or goes against the laws of nature, as in the examples you have given. Sexual immorality is not forbidden to deny humans of the pleasure that results from intercourse. This pleasure was quite intentionally given by God and should not be vilified. God has not forbidden the enjoyment of intercourse, he has forbidden its abuse where it harms others or is unnatural. Sex before marriage does not fall into either of these to categories, so it is permissible, maybe not of special moral worth or morally good, but in any case permissible and legitimate. The fact that the Bible does not condemn it at any point can only confirm this.

 

[Mathilda]

The reason why sexual immorality is forbidden is becuase it harms other people or goes against the laws of nature, as in the examples you have given. ........ Sex before marriage does not fall into either of these to categories, so it is permissible, maybe not of special moral worth or morally good, but in any case permissible and legitimate.

I don't really care about the bible's views as they don't affect my life in any way, but to say that sex before marriage doesn't harm anone seems like a limited view of things.
In the time when the bible was written contraception wasn't quite up to the level that it is now, and I'd hazard a guess that sex had a very good chance of leading to pregnancy. So only if you can find evidence that children born to mother's outside of marriage weren't disadvanteged in any way because of the society's moral, emotional and financial support, you can't say that it didn't harm anyone.
The situation isn't quite the same these days.

 

[classical_hero]

As requested by Plontius. What is moral in the realms of sex?

 

[Plotinus]

Thanks for decluttering the other thread! Not that it seemed to be about the Pope at all, really, by then, but still.

I'll answer your question if you answer another one first. Why do we need to have any definition about sexual morality in order to determine what the Bible says on the matter? After all, if we're trying to work out what Paul or someone means by "sexual immorality", what we think about sexual morality doesn't seem relevant. Don't you think that for Christians the Bible ought to set the agenda, rather than the reader?

 

[classical_hero]

If you can tell me what is sexual maroality, then I would be able to see what is sezual immorality. Immorality is the opposite of morality, is it not?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nobody wants to take the first step. So...Sexual immorality is performing sexual acts that go against what is acceptable in a particular culture. If one bases one's culture on lthe Bible, those bounds will be different than if one's culture is based on the kama sutra. I hope this helps.

 

[Plotinus]

If you can tell me what is sexual maroality, then I would be able to see what is sezual immorality. Immorality is the opposite of morality, is it not?

The problem is that different people have different views of what counts as morality or not. You can't assume that two people agree. Therefore, whatever your view of morality or mine is, does not tell you what the view of Paul or any other Biblical author is. Even if we agree on the nature of sexual morality and immorality, how is that going to help us to understand Paul? He might have a completely different view.

It's a standard Protestant view that Scripture should be interpreted only by Scripture... Therefore, if you want to know what Paul means by "sexual immorality", you need to read Paul to find out, not tell Paul what you think he should mean!

All that said, Asclepius' definition seems pretty good to me. If we accept that definition, then sexual immorality for Paul means doing what is not sexually acceptable in his culture. Now all you need to do is look in the Bible and find out what was acceptable and not acceptable!

 

[Quasar1011]

Sex before marriage = fornication. The Bible uses various words for fornication in the original languages.

In 2nd Chronicles 21:11, Isaiah 23:17, and Ezekiel 16:26, the Hebrew word zanah is used. It can mean adultery, and less often of simple fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment. Figuratively, the word also means to commit idolatry, as the Jewish people were regarded as being the (spiritual) spouse of Jehovah. It can also mean to be a harlot, or whoredom.

In Ezekiel 16:29, the Hebrew word taznuth is used. It means harlotry, fornication, or whoredom; figuratively, it can mean idolatry.

The word fornication is most commonly found in the New Testament. It can be found in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 15:29 and 21:25; 1st Corinthians 5:1 (twice), 6:13, 6:18 (twice), and 7:2; 2nd Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1st Thessalonians 4:3; and Revelation 2:21, 9:21, 14:8, 17:2, 17:4, 18:3, and 19:2. All the above passages use the Greek word porneia (sound familiar?). Porneia means harlotry (to include adultery and incest), fornication, and figuratively can mean idolatry.

However, this word comes from the root porneuo, which means to act the harlot, engage in unlawful lust (of either sex), commit fornication, or figuratively, practice idolatry. Porneuo itself appears in many passages too: one of the mentions in 1st Corinthians 6:18, also in 10:8; and several times in Revelation: 2:14, 2:20, 17:2, 18:3 and 18:9.

The final use of the word fornication in the English, comes from the Greek word ekporneuo, used only in Jude 7. This word means to be utterly unchaste, to give onself over to fornication.

Now that you have all the Biblical references to it, you can look them up yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Marla_Singer]

As the pagan I am, I don't consider sex as a pleasure is evil. However, I can understand it could be considered this way before a decent contraception had been conceived since sex as a pleasure could lead to the conception of a child. As today it's possible to be responsible and have sex only for pleasure in the same time. I consider that religious principle as out-dated.

Personally, I even think it's actually more responsible to have sex before getting married because sexual harmony is very important in a couple. If it's only after the wedding that you realize you don't get along with your partner sexually speaking, well, your general relationship with your husband/wife will undoubtedly be deteriorated afterwards.