Topic: Is Sex Without Marriage a Sin?
Reply
greg's photo

greg

Thu 02/14/19 01:55 PM

Excellent insight my friend!
dukeemma's photo

dukeemma

Wed 04/03/19 12:02 AM

Adam and Eve did not officially get married but they had sxx and it wasn't called a sin, isn't it?
Shake 's photo

Shake

Sat 04/13/19 11:16 AM

Hi
ivegotthegirth's photo

ivegotthegirth

Sat 04/13/19 11:53 AM

If it is a sin which I don't believe, I'm really doomed!
I don't really believe in Heaven or Hell but if I did I guess I'd just go with the old "got to hell for the company and heaven for the weather" thing.
Another thought is maybe Heaven's Just A Sin Away...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfGAIHuw7w
no photo

...

Sun 04/14/19 03:15 AM

I was brought up a Catholic, because my Mother was one. I was taught that fornication was defined as sex between two people who are not married to each other and adultery was the same as fornication, except that one or both are married to someone else. It was a simple enough concept for a young boy to understand.

When I grew up I realised that there is no such thing as God and I now am part of the Humanist movement. Essentially, we make up our own minds about what we want to do but are always considerate to other people. Thus consensual sex is fine. It's a grey area when a married person has a relationship with someone else. You have to ask why. Maybe the answer is because the marriage relationship has become stale. In that case, why not. So long as those involved are happy I think it doesn't matter what you do.

This thread shows clearly how easy it is to get tied up in knots about the meaning of words and what was really meant by a series of writings by various people in various ancient languages collected together in a book. If you are no longer a bliever, life is so much simpler, just get on and enjoy it without all those worries!
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Mon 04/15/19 01:58 AM


The word "sin" is a base word to sinister. Only intentional sinister actions apply as a sin. Rape is a sin. Betraying another to enjoy sex, is a "sin"ister action. Are any of you actually using your grey matter?



in this manner, are driveways only for driving and parkways only for parking? The etymology of sinister is actually interesting, including a definition that only ment 'left handed'


http://www.etymonline.com/word/sinister


It is now a word in Christian teaching that means, generally speaking, against the commandments of God.

If one believes in a creator, is it a 'betrayal' of that creator to misuse his creation or ignore his design or commandments, even if we are talking about the body we live in? Or would a creator only care about whether their creations betrayed each other?

hmm ... I do wish the answers were that simple.





Edited by msharmony on Mon 04/15/19 02:06 AM
brownchoco's photo

brownchoco

Wed 04/17/19 08:24 AM

i was born and raised according to baptist doctrine,and sex before marriage was frowned on bigtime. but i believe we need have sex before marriage just to if you going out with is a compatible sex partner. i strongly believe good and active sexual life leads to a less complicated and lasting relationship
no photo

...

Wed 04/17/19 09:52 AM

But that's the problem. Followers of most religions tey to tell people how to behave in matters like sex that are nothing to do with them. It is a control freak situation. Common sense says you will test drive a new car, maybe several, before deciding to buy. Surely the same common sense applies to sex with any other adult, at first to see if it goes well and then, if it does, again and again because it's so good. :smile:

If everything else is also good, you might decide to live together or you might decide to marry. Your decision and nobody else's.

While on the subject of marriage, I do believe that marriage should be a legal business deal, even including what would happen if divorce becomes necessary in the future. Any business deal will have get-out clauses in place before the parties sign the agreement. Why should marriage be different with nobody ever thinking about divorce at the time of marriage? About a third of all marriages will end in divorce.

After that, you celebrate and of course followers of a religion will celebrate according to their traditions. I don't think the two should be mixed up as they are in many churches.
no photo

hupuppy

Wed 04/17/19 06:10 PM

yes
no photo

...

Fri 04/19/19 02:42 PM

I'm glad you agree :smile:
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Fri 04/19/19 04:17 PM


Adam and Eve did not officially get married but they had sex and it wasn't called a sin, isn't it?



there was no one else to have sex WITH. Being the only couple, they were by design 'married' or committed to each other.

msharmony's photo

msharmony

Fri 04/19/19 04:22 PM


But that's the problem. Followers of most religions tey to tell people how to behave in matters like sex that are nothing to do with them. It is a control freak situation. Common sense says you will test drive a new car, maybe several, before deciding to buy. Surely the same common sense applies to sex with any other adult, at first to see if it goes well and then, if it does, again and again because it's so good. :smile:

If everything else is also good, you might decide to live together or you might decide to marry. Your decision and nobody else's.

While on the subject of marriage, I do believe that marriage should be a legal business deal, even including what would happen if divorce becomes necessary in the future. Any business deal will have get-out clauses in place before the parties sign the agreement. Why should marriage be different with nobody ever thinking about divorce at the time of marriage? About a third of all marriages will end in divorce.

After that, you celebrate and of course followers of a religion will celebrate according to their traditions. I don't think the two should be mixed up as they are in many churches.



I believe some people tell others what to do out of control, and others out of concern. I tell my kids not to eat too many sweets, because I know that its not healthy for them. I consider sin to be a matter of spiritual health and what The Word has warned as 'unhealthy' activity. I have opinions about it that I will share in relevant situations and context and with those I care about. Even after my child is grown, I still direct him when I think he is entering unhealthy habits or territory just as he does me, not to dictate or control, but to warn and show concern and direction. Every adult has the right to choose, and the more options, doesn't make it any less of a choice.

Others providing options don't have to be followed, but they don't hurt to hear out or consider either. The end choices will always be ours.

I would support a civil union, strictly 'legal' type of system as well. I believe that religion should still retain 'marriage' , recognized by that religious establishment and its followers. I believe marriage should be a type of civil union, recognized also by law. But those who don't believe in the vows of marriage, should be permitted their own legal documents of civil union to enter into the relationship they wish to.



no photo

...

Sat 04/20/19 04:02 AM

I think we do agree on so many things. I do however find it unacceptable that the 'Church' (any church or religious organisation) tries to 'control' its members. All that is necessary is for parents to educate their children and then when those children are old enough, allow them to follow their own path, even if it is not the same as they were taught.

Many Muslim men insist that it is their right to control their women - men are superior and women have to accept the decision of men, even in what they wear. I often see a Muslim couple walking down the street with the wife following her husband a few steps behind him. A non-muslim English couple will walk down the street, chatting, maybe holding hands. I know which I would rather be!

The Catholic Church has its own rules which you are expected to obey if you are to be a good Catholic. None of those rules are actually necessary if you are a humanist. They duplicate humanist values, except where certain things are concerned. Catholics are supposed to remain virgin till they marry and after that only have sex with the spouse. In an ideal world this might be a good idea, but even in the Bible, Joseph and Mary had sex before they were married! And long ago, Catholic priests were often married men, yet today that is not allowed.

I find it very hard to understand why people believe in this imaginary being and then are happy to follow all these rules.

Religion does rather remind me of those who believe the earth is flat. No matter how much science you show them, they will always start off from the position that they are right and then try to distort the facts to prove their point! Followers of any religion seems just the same to me.

It seems to me that many religions, such much more than others, have a long way to go before they can be considered to be gender neutral. Too many men in charge of their women and too many rules to support that situation.

Here in England there are laws about equality, but churches are allowed to be exceptions to that law when their own rules would break these laws if they were not allowed to be an exception.

We live in a crazy world!
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Sat 04/20/19 11:08 AM


I think we do agree on so many things. I do however find it unacceptable that the 'Church' (any church or religious organisation) tries to 'control' its members. All that is necessary is for parents to educate their children and then when those children are old enough, allow them to follow their own path, even if it is not the same as they were taught.

Many Muslim men insist that it is their right to control their women - men are superior and women have to accept the decision of men, even in what they wear. I often see a Muslim couple walking down the street with the wife following her husband a few steps behind him. A non-muslim English couple will walk down the street, chatting, maybe holding hands. I know which I would rather be!

The Catholic Church has its own rules which you are expected to obey if you are to be a good Catholic. None of those rules are actually necessary if you are a humanist. They duplicate humanist values, except where certain things are concerned. Catholics are supposed to remain virgin till they marry and after that only have sex with the spouse. In an ideal world this might be a good idea, but even in the Bible, Joseph and Mary had sex before they were married! And long ago, Catholic priests were often married men, yet today that is not allowed.

I find it very hard to understand why people believe in this imaginary being and then are happy to follow all these rules.

Religion does rather remind me of those who believe the earth is flat. No matter how much science you show them, they will always start off from the position that they are right and then try to distort the facts to prove their point! Followers of any religion seems just the same to me.

It seems to me that many religions, such much more than others, have a long way to go before they can be considered to be gender neutral. Too many men in charge of their women and too many rules to support that situation.

Here in England there are laws about equality, but churches are allowed to be exceptions to that law when their own rules would break these laws if they were not allowed to be an exception.

We live in a crazy world!



Well, I agree with the last sentence.

there is no civilization without standards and laws. People still have choice to 'follow' them, whether they feel 'controlled' or not. Religion is no different than any other human system of co existence.

Generally, speaking for myself, I am happy to follow most 'laws' because I live with other humans and they maintain some type of foundation for coexisting in some manner or another that makes sense to me. This goes for human and religious law.

As for science, my view, is that I do not know the scientists either. I have faith in the integrity of the things they say they prove and the things they write because they make sense to me, just like my faith in God and The Bible. There can be no contradiction. For me, when one system is created by another, it is not the latter that is bound by the first. It would be as if robots came up with self awareness and started to doubt that man could bleed, because they cant. Evidence they cant bleed is not evidence that their CREATOR(s) could therefore not bleed.




Edited by msharmony on Sat 04/20/19 11:13 AM
no photo

...

Sat 04/20/19 11:53 AM

Religion sometimes disagrees with science, which is totally unnecessary. For a long time us human beings were so arrogant that we believed our planet is the centre of everything. There is no reason at all to assume that, yet the church not only believed it but they ex-communicated the scientist Coprnicus for daring to suggest that the earth actually goes round the sun and not the sun round the earth as had previously been believed.

The problem isn't the scientific error, it is the arrogance in their the 'belief' that they were 'right' and anyone who had a different opinion was not only 'wrong' but committing a sin by daring to state something different to church beliefs. In other words the church was not at all interested in truth, the only interest they had was in laying down what they considered the law and punishing anyone who dared to have a different opinion.

It wasn't until recently 1960s (I think) that the church officially recognised that the earth does in fact go round the sun and pardoned Copernicus. A bit late, I would say.

As far as I know the church now accepts the scientific findings that we are in fact nothing more than a planet in a solar system which is on the edge of a galaxy which in itself is just one of countless millions of galaxies.

The point I am trying to make is that in this sense believers in some form of higher being are exactly like believers of a flat eart - they have an 'official view' of life and it is required that believers accept that view. Believers will go to any lengths to justify the existence of this mythical being!

I don't think I am making myself as clear as I would like. It is very difficult arguing with someone whose entire existence is wrapped up in these fairy tales. They are completely unable to understand, just as flat earthers are incapable of understanding the vast amount of scientific evidence proving the earth is round, or of those religious people a few hundred years ago who totally believed that our planet is the centre of absolutely everything. It must have been a complete shock to their beliefs to be proved wrong on such a relatively minor point!
no photo

...

Sat 04/20/19 11:56 AM

Standards are drawn up and agreed by Standards Committees around the world. Laws are made by governments and there is no choice about whether to obey them or not. It is a requirement that we obey the lawas made by our governments. These things have nothing to do with religion, which is an optional extra that some people believe in and some do not. It makes no difference and breaks no laws if someone changes their mind about which religion they wish to follow, or decide to follow none, as I did aged about 18.
no photo

...

Sat 04/20/19 12:00 PM

We're wandering from the topic.

Yes, sex outside marriage is a sin and some (most? all?) religions, because it says so in their rule book.

Sin is not a concept that exists outside of religion, so therefore by definition, sex outside of marriage is not a sin for those who have no religious belief. Whether it is a good idea or not is left entirely up to individual people and couples, as indeed it should be.
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Sat 04/20/19 12:05 PM


Religion sometimes disagrees with science, which is totally unnecessary. For a long time us human beings were so arrogant that we believed our planet is the centre of everything. There is no reason at all to assume that, yet the church not only believed it but they ex-communicated the scientist Coprnicus for daring to suggest that the earth actually goes round the sun and not the sun round the earth as had previously been believed.

The problem isn't the scientific error, it is the arrogance in their the 'belief' that they were 'right' and anyone who had a different opinion was not only 'wrong' but committing a sin by daring to state something different to church beliefs. In other words the church was not at all interested in truth, the only interest they had was in laying down what they considered the law and punishing anyone who dared to have a different opinion.

It wasn't until recently 1960s (I think) that the church officially recognised that the earth does in fact go round the sun and pardoned Copernicus. A bit late, I would say.

As far as I know the church now accepts the scientific findings that we are in fact nothing more than a planet in a solar system which is on the edge of a galaxy which in itself is just one of countless millions of galaxies.

The point I am trying to make is that in this sense believers in some form of higher being are exactly like believers of a flat eart - they have an 'official view' of life and it is required that believers accept that view. Believers will go to any lengths to justify the existence of this mythical being!

I don't think I am making myself as clear as I would like. It is very difficult arguing with someone whose entire existence is wrapped up in these fairy tales. They are completely unable to understand, just as flat earthers are incapable of understanding the vast amount of scientific evidence proving the earth is round, or of those religious people a few hundred years ago who totally believed that our planet is the centre of absolutely everything. It must have been a complete shock to their beliefs to be proved wrong on such a relatively minor point!



I will pose simple questions. What does science prove? Who proves it and how is it proof? Who are the 'scientists' and did they not also believe the earth was the center until they had NEW information?

And if this science can be updated with new information and resources, is it therefore also not all knowing?

With that premise, what is it about science that 'proves' believers wrong?

Isn't the point of a belief, that you believe it, and if you dont believe it , you are not a believer?

I guess I'm not getting the connection of why either science OR religion have to be right, instead of both coexisting as relevant explanations of life and existence.
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Sat 04/20/19 12:05 PM


Religion sometimes disagrees with science, which is totally unnecessary. For a long time us human beings were so arrogant that we believed our planet is the centre of everything. There is no reason at all to assume that, yet the church not only believed it but they ex-communicated the scientist Coprnicus for daring to suggest that the earth actually goes round the sun and not the sun round the earth as had previously been believed.

The problem isn't the scientific error, it is the arrogance in their the 'belief' that they were 'right' and anyone who had a different opinion was not only 'wrong' but committing a sin by daring to state something different to church beliefs. In other words the church was not at all interested in truth, the only interest they had was in laying down what they considered the law and punishing anyone who dared to have a different opinion.

It wasn't until recently 1960s (I think) that the church officially recognised that the earth does in fact go round the sun and pardoned Copernicus. A bit late, I would say.

As far as I know the church now accepts the scientific findings that we are in fact nothing more than a planet in a solar system which is on the edge of a galaxy which in itself is just one of countless millions of galaxies.

The point I am trying to make is that in this sense believers in some form of higher being are exactly like believers of a flat eart - they have an 'official view' of life and it is required that believers accept that view. Believers will go to any lengths to justify the existence of this mythical being!

I don't think I am making myself as clear as I would like. It is very difficult arguing with someone whose entire existence is wrapped up in these fairy tales. They are completely unable to understand, just as flat earthers are incapable of understanding the vast amount of scientific evidence proving the earth is round, or of those religious people a few hundred years ago who totally believed that our planet is the centre of absolutely everything. It must have been a complete shock to their beliefs to be proved wrong on such a relatively minor point!



I will pose simple questions. What does science prove? Who proves it and how is it proof? Who are the 'scientists' and did they not also believe the earth was the center until they had NEW information?

And if this science can be updated with new information and resources, is it therefore also not all knowing?

With that premise, what is it about science that 'proves' believers wrong?

Isn't the point of a belief, that you believe it, and if you dont believe it , you are not a believer?

I guess I'm not getting the connection of why either science OR religion have to be right, instead of both coexisting as relevant explanations of life and existence.
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Sat 04/20/19 12:10 PM


Standards are drawn up and agreed by Standards Committees around the world. Laws are made by governments and there is no choice about whether to obey them or not. It is a requirement that we obey the lawas made by our governments. These things have nothing to do with religion, which is an optional extra that some people believe in and some do not. It makes no difference and breaks no laws if someone changes their mind about which religion they wish to follow, or decide to follow none, as I did aged about 18.



It is not that religion has 'nothing' to do with it, it is that religion is akin to committees or governments. IT is a structure or system of humans. And humans in those groups have standards and expectations for being a part of that group of humans. Saying religion is optional, pre supposes that it is incorrect. Governments and committees are of the world, in the here and now. Religion speaks to life beyond this world. So, if one presumes that there is life beyond this life and this world, the rules and laws are no more 'optional' than any other.

The consequences are of course debatable. People break laws every day in this world with NO CONSEQUENCE because there is no one to know they broke them or to hold them accountable, so in that sense, those laws and rules are also 'optional'. The time they become no longer optional is at the point one can be held accountable.