[goMac]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19....ap/index.html

The most effective quote from the article:

""The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government's funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12- to 29-year-olds," Finer said.

Under the Bush administration, such programs have received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.

"It would be more effective," Finer said, "to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active -- which nearly everyone eventually will.""

[Dakar²]

Here's my question: How do religious people reconcile this against their beliefs? This is a religious no-no for practicing Christians (yes/no) ?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Dakar� 

Here's my question: How do religious people reconcile this against their beliefs? This is a religious no-no for practicing Christians (yes/no) ?

Correct. Christians are called to absolute purity, and several passages in the New Testament promote having 'not even a hint' of sexual immorality. I've heard one Christian talk about how he used to rationalize it: Sex in the Bible is with the intent of making kids, and that's not what he was doing, so it was okay.


I think this shows that a lot of people are 'Christians' until it makes them uncomfortable or starts to get in the way of having 'fun,' and then who they really are comes out.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

I've heard one Christian talk about how he used to rationalize it: Sex in the Bible is with the intent of making kids, and that's not what he was doing, so it was okay.

I'm not sure I read that right. It contradicts itself.

[Wiskedjak]

I find 95% a little difficult to believe

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I find 95% a little difficult to believe

I find it easier to believe if you consider it doesn't have to mean they had it in high school or college.

Think about this way. If you have 20 friends, that means at least 1 was a virgin until marriage.

[BRussell]

What shocks me is that 5% don't have premarital sex. They probably wanted to but couldn't find a willing partner.

[Sky Captain]

I thought it's be more like 98-99%.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I'm not sure I read that right. It contradicts itself.

But it perfectly answers your question "How do religious people reconcile this against their beliefs?"

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Here's my question: How do religious people reconcile this against their beliefs? This is a religious no-no for practicing Christians (yes/no) ?

Yep. Those who practice premarital sex anyway are sinning, and those Christians who do it and don't repent are hypocrites.

The results of this poll, then, are that the moral crisis in the US concerning these matters is far worse than previously believed, and needs attention much more urgently than previously thought.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

What shocks me is that 5% don't have premarital sex. They probably wanted to but couldn't find a willing partner.

Or they got married at 16. BTW, it says nothing about infidelity...

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Yep. Those who practice premarital sex anyway are sinning, and those Christians who do it and don't repent are hypocrites.

Yes ,well if the poll is any indication that makes for a sizable chunk of us. I forget what the percentage of people who consider themselves 'deeply religious' in the US is. (30%? Higher?)

Originally Posted by Millennium 

The results of this poll, then, are that the moral crisis in the US concerning these matters is far worse than previously believed, and needs attention much more urgently than previously thought.

I suppose the moral crisis isn't so much that people are having premarital sex, drinking or doing drugs per se, but more that many do this when it contradicts the morals they claim to hold in high regard (i.e., they would rather be hypocrites then disavow a religion their lifestyles is at odds with).



(In a major OT, this is why flagrant athiests get on Christians so much. It does reek of going through the motions for fear of the consequences)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Or maybe it means they are great at reconciling logical paradoxes, a valuable skill.

[Dakar²]

Reconcile or ignore?

[Macrobat]

Correct. Christians are called to absolute purity, and several passages in the New Testament promote having 'not even a hint' of sexual immorality. I've heard one Christian talk about how he used to rationalize it: Sex in the Bible is with the intent of making kids, and that's not what he was doing, so it was okay.

Not only incorrect, an outright lie.

Christians are not "called to absolute purity," please show ONE verse of scripture to back this up. Christians are forgiven for their human failures, not immune to them.

Please spread fertilizer elsewhere.


The answer to the question? Christians DON'T "reconcile" or "rationalize" this with their religion, they ask forgiveness for their failings.

[Dakar²]

Doesn that mean they can have premarital sex on purpose (and repeatedly) and receive forgiveness?

Note the OP, I can take this to a new thread if you feel I'm derailing it.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Not only incorrect, an outright lie.

Christians are not "called to absolute purity," please show ONE verse of scripture to back this up. Christians are forgiven for their human failures, not immune to them.

Please spread fertilizer elsewhere.


The answer to the question? Christians DON'T "reconcile" or "rationalize" this with their religion, they ask forgiveness for their failings.

I think you're misunderstanding me. When I said that Christians are called to absolute purity, I meant that the Bible frowns upon any type of premarital "sexual" messing around.
And the second part confuses me. I don't think anything I said indicated that Christians are perfect, or that sexual sins are unforgivable. I'm saying the Bible says save "sex" stuff for marriage.

Ephesians 5:3: But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Doesn that mean they can have premarital sex on purpose (and repeatedly) and receive forgiveness?

Note the OP, I can take this to a new thread if you feel I'm derailing it.

There's more to asking for forgiveness than just saying "Oh yeah, probably shouldn't have done that." It's about 'repenting,' or as Dictionary.com says it "to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent." It's not screwing up knowing that you'll be forgiven, because if one is not actually sorry for what one did, then one is not really seeking forgiveness, just looking for a free ticket to do anything.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Yep. Those who practice premarital sex anyway are sinning, and those Christians who do it and don't repent are hypocrites.

What I find interesting is that those who think premarital sex is a sin haven't taken into account that people are encouraged to marry way later in life than they used to.

As misguided as I find the whole concept of no sex before marriage, when people used to get married at 16 at least it was plausible that people could abstain.

As far as I understand it, the idea was never to tell 16 year-olds with raging hormones to put a lid on it, they were supposed to screw like minks within the confines of holy matrimony.

Now, since getting married at 16 has become taboo (for good reason), abstinence is a much tougher row to hoe.

As an added irony, most people who think premarital sex is a sin decry the dissolute nature of today's youth. I'm wondering how they expect someone with lax morals to live up to a higher standard than a few generations ago?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

There's more to asking for forgiveness than just saying "Oh yeah, probably shouldn't have done that." It's about 'repenting,' or as Dictionary.com says it "to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent." It's not screwing up knowing that you'll be forgiven, because if one is not actually sorry for what one did, then one is not really seeking forgiveness, just looking for a free ticket to do anything.

Well I guess my argument goes to that a large amount of people are doing just that, even if they don't realize it.

[Chuckit]

The Bible condemns adultery. It does not necessarily condemn premarital sex (unless we go in with the rather tautological assumption that premarital sex is immoral).

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by subego 

Now, since getting married at 16 has become taboo (for good reason), abstinence is a much tougher row to hoe.

Oh, give me a break. Sure, it's not as easy as the alternative, but it's not that hard.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

it's not that hard.

Well, maybe that's the proble...

Naw. Too easy.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The Bible condemns adultery. It does not necessarily condemn premarital sex (unless we go in with the rather tautological assumption that premarital sex is immoral).

Yeah, this is where arguing the subject always starts to breakdown. People often can't agree on where their religion stands on such issues.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Oh, give me a break. Sure, it's not as easy as the alternative, but it's not that hard.

I'd be willing to bet a vast majority of those who do have premarital sex are either looking for it or knowingly put themselves in situations in which it's likely.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

put themselves in situations in which it's likely.

Well, you can pretty much call that dating.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The Bible condemns adultery. It does not necessarily condemn premarital sex (unless we go in with the rather tautological assumption that premarital sex is immoral).

Well Genesis 2:24 says:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

And in 1 Corinthians 6:16-16:

Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

So it seems that the 'become one flesh' is alluding to sexual intercourse. It also mentions that before two people 'become one flesh,' the man leaves his father and mother. I'd say this is at least a little bit of evidence towards marriage before sex.

[Dakar²]

In what cases do passages from the OT do and don't apply?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Oh, give me a break. Sure, it's not as easy as the alternative, but it's not that hard.

Seriously though. It isn't?

Since when is doing a lock-job on one of your biological imperatives an easy thing?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

So it seems that the 'become one flesh' is alluding to sexual intercourse. It also mentions that before two people 'become one flesh,' the man leaves his father and mother. I'd say this is at least a little bit of evidence towards marriage before sex.

It's evidence towards sex after marriage, yes. It does not, however, mean that sex before marriage is wrong. (If I might risk an analogy, the command "You must stop at stop signs" does not imply "You must not stop unless there is a stop sign in front of you.")

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The Bible condemns adultery. It does not necessarily condemn premarital sex (unless we go in with the rather tautological assumption that premarital sex is immoral).

Not if you define adultery as 'extra-marital sex', which pre-marital sex certainly is.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not if you define adultery as 'extra-marital sex', which pre-marital sex certainly is.

Or if you define "stealing" or "murder" as "premarital sex," I suppose. But as I said, the Bible does not clearly condemn premarital sex. You may read it into some passages, but it's questionable at best.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Yep. Those who practice premarital sex anyway are sinning, and those Christians who do it and don't repent are hypocrites.

There is no need to repent because having premarital sex is not wrong, nor are there inherently harmful effects from it.

Originally Posted by Millennium 

The results of this poll, then, are that the moral crisis in the US concerning these matters is far worse than previously believed, and needs attention much more urgently than previously thought.

I agree that this issue certainly needs attention. I think it signifies that we need to abandon the irrational idea that having sex makes one impure and is this morally radioactive act outside of marriage. People find out fairly soon that your life doesn't fall apart when you have sex as long as you are responsible about it and have access to information and birth control.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

nor are there inherently harmful effects from it.

Not counting STDs and kids?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Not counting STDs and kids?

What and who now?

Oh, and Matthew 5:27-28 say

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

What and who now?

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Oh, and Matthew 5:27-28 say

Thanks, that satisfies that possible argument.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Or if you define "stealing" or "murder" as "premarital sex," I suppose. But as I said, the Bible does not clearly condemn premarital sex. You may read it into some passages, but it's questionable at best.

I don't think it's a stretch at all. Pre-marital sex is sex that happens outside of a marriage by definition. That makes it extra-marital sex. Obviously it lacks the moral implications of having committed yourself to a single person, but if you view that as being a commitment with God then you could have an equally valid and binding commitment to not have sex before being married.

Fortunately, this sort of mental contortion is easily avoided by just not being religious. That's how I do it anyway...

[SSharon]

As a religious jew, I tend to interpret things slightly differently. Assuming proper intent, one aspect of marriage is to consummate it. Therefore according to my twisted logic if you have sex with your partner before 'marriage' but you intend on being with them, you are in fact marrying them right then and there. This custom is still upheld today when the couple is left alone for a few minutes to potentially give them time to consummate the marriage.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Oh, and Matthew 5:27-28 say

It's actually not possible for a bloke to commit adultery with an unmarried chick. Jesus meant "don't be lusting after someone else's wife".

I've been looking into this pre-marital sex thing recently and conclude that it's actually not forbidden. What is forbidden is "impure" acts, which I take to mean "uncaring, casual" acts and the obvious (i.e. golden showers, scat, sanchez, felching, rimming, etc.). YMMV.

[lpkmckenna]

Taking cue on sexual morality from the Bible is a losing proposition. It was written in a time when people often married at 13, and powerful men often had several wives. In other words, the majority of marriages the Bible discusses would be scandalous today.

How can anyone take seriously the notion of no premarital sex *and* no masturbation when people often wait until 30 to marry?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

(i.e. golden showers, scat, sanchez, felching, rimming, etc.)

Oral?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

Oral?

Bite your tongue.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Oral?

Probably.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Everyone seems to forget why one would want to remain a virgin until marriage (Or other serious and life-long relationship) anyways

What else is a greater gift to give the love of your life, but the one thing you can only give once, and has such a important biological and emotional importance placed upon it?

Rationalize yourself all you want, but by giving your virginity to someone else, it cheapened it when you finally met the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. That is all. Good day.

(That said, to each his own, so whatever you found that works for you, more power to you.)

[Chuckit]

In all honesty, I didn't feel any emotional importance to my virginity. Some people have told me they wish they'd stayed virgins, and I'm like, "OK, then stop having sex. Same diff."

[macintologist]

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...remarital-sex/

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

In all honesty, I didn't feel any emotional importance to my virginity. Some people have told me they wish they'd stayed virgins, and I'm like, "OK, then stop having sex. Same diff."

I agree. There's nothing sacred about virginity. It's just an ancient cultural view used by patriarchal societies used to control women to make sure that their husband is the first person they have f**ked.

So all in all, when people, especially women, say how important their virginity is, they are simply reenforcing an old misogynist way of thinking.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

In what cases do passages from the OT do and don't apply?

passages from the OT always apply. I think your question is; "when and where to apply them?"

Some aspects of the OT are indicative of the struggle to prepare peoples and cultures for Jesus' birth and message. Those aspects of the OT are specified to that time and are useful for historical application and understanding. Then, there are timeless aspects of the OT that suggest forms of governance and general rules for decent coexistence. Personally, these timeless aspects of the OT are wise well beyond their years.

Premarital sex is a life-complication I certainly don't want my daughter to have to deal with. Some call this hypocritical of course because I not only had premarital sex, but in fact birthed both my daughters out of wedlock. I was born and raised Catholic, but did not understand nor believe what I now understand and believe about the spiritual ramifications of sex. I was not as faithful then as I am now and I think most would agree that youth (among other things) propagates reckless behavior at times because of an innate sense of indestructibility.

I'm now married to their mother, but we've pretty much done everything exactly backwards and statistically represented the template for failure; have kids, get married, find career. Luckily, (IMO, blessedly) this was not the case for my wife and I and our relationship is extremely strong. At times, in spite of my own actions.

* As an aside; I'm simply offering my daughters with direction I did not have. I don't find this hypocritical, I find it obligatory as a parent. I think people generally do not define "hypocrisy" accurately.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I agree. There's nothing sacred about virginity. It's just an ancient cultural view used by patriarchal societies used to control women to make sure that their husband is the first person they have f**ked.

Interesting take.

So all in all, when people, especially women, say how important their virginity is, they are simply reenforcing an old misogynist way of thinking.

Thank goodness for enlightenment eh? Now we have unprecedented teen pregnancy, STDs, fatherless homes, children born out of wedlock, and sky-rocketing number of children born into poverty. I'll take "the old misogynist way of thinking" every day of the week.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's actually not possible for a bloke to commit adultery with an unmarried chick. Jesus meant "don't be lusting after someone else's wife".

Ah, yes, the disagreements begin.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

In all honesty, I didn't feel any emotional importance to my virginity. Some people have told me they wish they'd stayed virgins, and I'm like, "OK, then stop having sex. Same diff."

I bet its based more on an emotional response to their first time and whether it lived up to their ideal.

Of course, this would be like me complaining, "I wish my first car hadn't been a pinto."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

passages from the OT always apply. I think your question is; "when and where to apply them?"

I have nowhere near the biblical knowledge to dispute that, but based on my wholly unscientific memory of my time here, I think there's been several times I've heard members quote biblical passages and be told they're now irrelevant in the face of Jesus.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*As an aside; I'm simply offering my daughters with direction I did not have. I don't find this hypocritical, I find it obligatory as a parent. I think people generally do not define "hypocrisy" accurately.

I think you misunderstand my take on it -- unless you're telling me you'd re-engage in premarital sex today.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Ah, yes, the disagreements begin.

No disagreement here - them's the facts. If you want to disagree, feel free. But you'd be wrong.