[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by JonnyBoy

mmm nix! very good quotes and verses! but I still see no corrilation with them and two individules who are completely committed to God and each other enjoying each other sexually before they are financially ready for a wedding ceremony.

If they are truly committed to God and each other then they would wait.

those wonderful passages seem to be speaking to rapeists, adulterers, and prostitutes.

Are you sure about that?

1 Corinthians 7
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

"Rapists, adulterers, and prostitutes" are not mentioned in the entire chapter. This part of his letter is directed to husbands and wives and to the unmarried.

seems like all we are (both) doing now is trying to prove and justify our own ways of thinking...

No, that's what you're doing. You haven't provided any scripture. So far your only arguments are the "human interpretation" card and "I have these friends..." argument.

Show us from scripture where you are getting this view or we will continue to dismiss your emotionally- and culturally-based viewpoint.

does it seem like I am grabbing at straws?

Yes. If you can prove to us that the original Greek words that Paul uses here are purposefully mistranslated then I will stand corrected. Until then I will stand by the word and by 2,000 years of tradition.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JonnyBoy

it seems like modern thinking, science and psycology pretty well supports what God says in the bible (that the 10 commandments are pretty good relational ideas) but (from what I have heard, most psycologists say premarital sex isn't all that bad.

I encourage you to read back through the Ten Commandments and consider which of them "modern thinking" affirms. Coveting is supported by every advertising power in the world, because it's all about the individual consumer. The "Sabbath Day" is forgotten for a rest and peace understood as whatever the individual consumer desires. Sex, similarly, is understood as a consumer product, and it's all about the desire and action of consenting adults. You seem to hold the same view of sex -- sex is a transaction between two consenting persons who declare that they "love each other."

The reason that the Bible doesn't directly and explicitly address your issue so often is that the understanding of sexuality you're dealing with was unknown at the time of the Bible's writing. So-called "liberalism" (don't think Democrats; think political philosophers of the last few centuries) holds everything under the authority of the autonomous individual, who acts according to his own desires and does as he pleases as long as it doesn't "hurt" anybody else. Your argument for allowing sex during engagement hinges on this notion that sex is basically an expression of "love" between two consenting individuals.

The 1 Corinthians 7 passage, you see, doesn't deal with this view because, quite obviously, philosophies of the last few centuries weren't around in its day. Instead, the 1 Corinthians 7 passage assumes that there will be no legitimate sex outside of marriage.

This works throughout the Bible. For instance, Levitical law assumes that a female will be a "virgin" unless she has been raped or is married; if a man has sex with her before she is married then he is required to pay the penalty. A man will not discover whether his woman is a virgin until he marries her; she is a virgin until that time (Deut 22). Hebrews 13:4 says to "keep the marriage bed undefiled," assuming that going to bed apart from marriage is a defilement of "fornicators and adulterers."

For this reason, when you point out that these passages seem to be speaking about rapists, adulterers, and fornicators, you are right on, because the Biblical writers would have no category for you other than rapist, murderer, or fornicator.

You say that because sex is an expression of love between two consenting individuals (again, trusting traditions of secular philosophy instead of trusting Christian traditions), and because the only thing keeping you from marriage is a wedding ceremony, and becuase the only thing keeping you from the ceremony is money, it's ridiculous to keep you from sexual play. On the contrary, all you're showing is that you lack commitment and follow-through. You want the privileges of the marriage commitment but aren't willing to live up to that high commitment. What you're showing is that you're cutting corners in your marriage, which means that you're showing that you're going to be a bad husband. Please, please, please, understand that marriage is a commitment and that you are so uncommitted right now that you are going to be a bad husband.

Is sex "better" when you're married? Yes and no. No, it's not going to be totally amazing the first time you have sex, at least probably not. Sex gets better and better the more you do it. The fact that you got married three hours ago does not mean that the immediate experience will necessary feel twenty times better.

But if you have sex before you are married then it shows your wife that you are the kind of person who would rather get what he wants above all else, not the kind of person who is committed to her. If you have sex before you are married then it is nothing beyond a transaction of pleasure or amusement. It has no grounding in commitment. It is two people coming together and being completely and totally naked and vulnerable with each other, but there is no relationship there that is deep enough to support that kind of intimacy. Relationship is always defined by commitment, and only the commitment of marriage is strong enough for the nakedness and vulnerability of sex.

You're right that, if sex is just a transaction of pleasure between two consenting individuals then it makes no sense for it to be a privilege of marriage. But if sex is an expression of a relationship that is based on the marriage commitment then it can make no sense to have sex with anyone other than your wife.

I encourage you to tell me what sex is in a Biblical theology, and what marriage is in a Biblical theology. (And maybe even what love or commitment is in a Biblical theology.) If you can do that then it will be clear that sex apart from marriage simply doesn't make sense. Sure, you don't like the way "Grandma" thought, in terms of rigid rules and so on. You like Rob Bell's story-driven theology instead. That's OK -- give me a story of sex in the Bible. You won't be able to do so apart from marriage.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by John Roberson

Is sex "better" when you're married? Yes and no. No, it's not going to be totally amazing the first time you have sex, at least probably not. Sex gets better and better the more you do it. The fact that you got married three hours ago does not mean that the immediate experience will necessary feel twenty times better.

Something else to consider in addition to this is that in most cases, at some point sex is going to be awkward. Whether its on the marriage night or you're engaged in pre-marital sex, you're going to go through an awkward stage somewhere.

[nix]

I'm going to be honust here.

Sex before marriage brings shame upon one or both people.

My husband and I didn't give in but we sure fooled around and it's affecting our marriage. Emotionally, sexually and spiritually.

For me as a woman, I struggle to connect properly and I now have intimacy issues to deal with that I wouldn't have had to deal with if we had kept our hands to ourselves.

Would you stop thinking about yourself and your own selfish and lustful desires for a woman that doesn't belong to you yet. You are to treat like a sister till you do get married.

You have no right to defile her body, a temple to God, with your sinful desires!

If you really loved her and God, then you would do what the Word and God asks of us.

1 Cor 13: 4 -7
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by thesteve

Something else to consider in addition to this is that in most cases, at some point sex is going to be awkward. Whether its on the marriage night or you're engaged in pre-marital sex, you're going to go through an awkward stage somewhere.

Haha, yeah. The stories I could tell...

Many people don't even have sex the first night. They're so tired from so much wedding planning and even the wedding event itself that they really aren't prepared to have sex, or maybe they're still trying to sort through the fact that they are married.

A lot of times the "first time" works easily outside of marriage because you feel "naughty," like you're doing something taboo, and that adventurousness gives you energy. But the fact is that, for both biological and psychological reasons, the first time is going to cause the woman pain (this certainly serves to bring the situation "down to earth" for the man). But you could go for a second round as soon as half an hour after the first time and the woman can really get into it.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by nix

Would you stop thinking about yourself and your own selfish and lustful desires for a woman that doesn't belong to you yet. You are to treat like a sister till you do get married.

Thank you so much for saying that as a woman. As I've been reading these posts I can't help but think that JonnyBoy is making a very hasty judgment for very selfish reasons, and it strongly demonstrates that he doesn't know anything about sex or marriage yet. Obviously, JonnyBoy, you can't have firsthand experience yet, but please trust us that you should not and must not to it. You've got to be a man here, even if you're still not sure if you're leaving adolescence or beginning manhood; as a matter of fact, this is a struggle that will really, really help you in becoming a man.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by John Roberson

Sex, similarly, is understood as a consumer product, and it's all about the desire and action of consenting adults. You seem to hold the same view of sex -- sex is a transaction between two consenting persons who declare that they "love each other."

Sex is also used by our culture as your primary identifier, hence the joke that it's weird to be a "____-year-old virgin." Last weekend at a party the upstairs neighbors offended (but not surprised) me by mocking a friend of theirs for being, like myself, a twenty-two year old virgin. He seemed a bit miffed, so they backtracked - "Oh, well, it's not weird to be a twenty-two year old virgin. But a thirty-year-old, a forty-year-old virgin. That's weird."

So sex to them is a rite of passage, regardless of who it's with. Sex becomes a personal goal, an individual fulfillment, not even always an act between two "loving" adults. It's a reason much of current contextual literary criticism is concerned with the sexuality of writers. Not that the life of a writer isn't important to study when looking at his writing, but it's amusing to see folks bend over backwards to analyze a writer like, say, H.P. Lovecraft, who wrote thousands of letters but beyond talking about his brief marriage never waxed erotic on heterosexual or homosexual topics. Sex wasn't his primary source of self-worth or self-identification, which ran and currently runs contrary to the culture.

You like Rob Bell's story-driven theology instead.

Not to (necessarily) start a rabbit trail or be insulting, but this Rob Bell guy scares me whenever I hear both his supporters and his detractors discuss his work.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JonnyBoy

mmm nix! very good quotes and verses! but I still see no corrilation with them and two individules who are completely committed to God and eachother enjoying eachother sexually before they are financially ready for a wedding ceremony. those wonderful passages seem to be speaking to rapeists, adulterers, and prostitutes.

seems like all we are (both) doing now is trying to prove and justify our own ways of thinking. . .

hey Epaphras, what I said in your quote was in responce to those people who paint a rosy picture of the "special" and "wonderful" first honeymoon night. I guess that night would still be special and wonderful if no orgasm was reached or if it was painful. but the exaggeration of the bliss of this night is unfair and leads to dissapointment.

I note that you ignored my point merely because you did not like it. Thats poor logic. Quite plainly, scripture says what it says.

The problem is you have placed money over the word of God. Your God is revealed in this post to be the dollar, for you worship its demands over God's commands.

You are making excuses.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I note that you ignored my point merely because you did not like it. Thats poor logic. Quite plainly, scripture says what it says.

The problem is you have placed money over the word of God. Your God is revealed in this post to be the dollar, for you worship its demands over God's commands.

You are making excuses.

Indeed, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

additionally, I don't know of anywhere in Scripture that we are told that we have to have a wedding ceremony, nor that if you have one it necessarily has to cost alot of money. Sure, often the "perfect" wedding (one's dream wedding) is going to cost some money, but there's nothing but tradition that says it has to be expensive or fancy. If Johnny wants to throw out pre-marital sex on the reasoning that "maybe it's traditional", why not throw out the concept of a wedding ceremony and just go to a judge?

[wjarmusch]

Originally Posted by John Roberson

I encourage you to read back through the Ten Commandments and consider which of them "modern thinking" affirms. Coveting is supported by every advertising power in the world, because it's all about the individual consumer. The "Sabbath Day" is forgotten for a rest and peace understood as whatever the individual consumer desires. Sex, similarly, is understood as a consumer product, and it's all about the desire and action of consenting adults. You seem to hold the same view of sex -- sex is a transaction between two consenting persons who declare that they "love each other."

The 1 Corinthians 7 passage, you see, doesn't deal with this view because, quite obviously, philosophies of the last few centuries weren't around in its day. Instead, the 1 Corinthians 7 passage assumes that there will be no legitimate sex outside of marriage.

This works throughout the Bible. For instance, Levitical law assumes that a female will be a "virgin" unless she has been raped or is married; if a man has sex with her before she is married then he is required to pay the penalty. A man will not discover whether his woman is a virgin until he marries her; she is a virgin until that time (Deut 22). Hebrews 13:4 says to "keep the marriage bed undefiled," assuming that going to bed apart from marriage is a defilement of "fornicators and adulterers."

For this reason, when you point out that these passages seem to be speaking about rapists, adulterers, and fornicators, you are right on, because the Biblical writers would have no category for you other than rapist, murderer, or fornicator.


But if you have sex before you are married then it shows your wife that you are the kind of person who would rather get what he wants above all else, not the kind of person who is committed to her.

THANK YOU. Those are exactly my thoughts, but I didn't feel I had the time to write them down and get my point across right. But that's exactly what I was thinking, right down to the Hebrews verse.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Not to (necessarily) start a rabbit trail or be insulting, but this Rob Bell guy scares me whenever I hear both his supporters and his detractors discuss his work.

He's trying to carve out a non-modernist theology. Modernism is a worthwhile thing to try to get away from -- after all, it produced Deism, Atheism, and Nihilism -- but he just doesn't have enough theological material to get anywhere ultimately worthwhile; the theological resources he has to draw on are ultimately limited to American fundamentalism, which makes his project stillborn. My primary response is just to ignore him and try to do stuff that matters instead.