[athanatos]

I have a question, and this may get complicated. I think it has been hit on by some people before, but the thread either got ugly or too personal (or both). Regardless, I hope someone can be accurate with their answers, and Biblical support is always, always the ideal.

If someone is unmarried, unsaved and is having sex occasionally with someone else who is in the same situation, then I believe that they should stop having sex. But what from there? Should they break ties, still be friends, go straight to courting, get married? Is there another option? Does the answer depend on if the sin will likely arise again, or on something else? I think that sex should always be balanced with other commitments, and not without them. (If you think otherwise, explain why.)

Oh! Then it occurred to me, what if one of them is a Christian? Does that change the answer?

(obviously this is a messed up scenario, so I can't imagine a lot of good; but what is best?)

[tigerfan88]

If they are in love, and are living together, to me, that signals that they ought to be considering marriage. After all, they're already living like a married couple. It's for this reason that I'd never consider moving in with a significant other before marriage--if we can afford to move in together, we can afford to get married even if it's a small wedding.

If they're in love, but not living together, then courtship would probably be appropriate and then marriage. Obviously, if they want to stop having sex--and it's going to be a tough thing to break--boundaries will have to be established, and they might have accountability partners to help accomplish this. That's regardless of if they're non-Christians or Christians. Even so, they might find this bond so hard to break that they might need to break off completely just to get past it.

If the sex is purely in lust, then I'd say they should either break ties or be friends. And then see where it goes. If it develops into love, then courtship/marriage should be considered.

To me, simply having sex isn't enough of a reason to go off and get married. There has to be love there and a want to be with that person of the rest of your life; otherwise, no amount of sex will keep both people happy in the marriage for life. Just my opinion.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by athanatos

If someone is unmarried, unsaved and is having sex occasionally with someone else who is in the same situation, then I believe that they should stop having sex. But what from there? Should they break ties, still be friends, go straight to courting, get married? Is there another option? Does the answer depend on if the sin will likely arise again, or on something else? I think that sex should always be balanced with other commitments, and not without them. (If you think otherwise, explain why.)

I'm confused as to why a non-Christian is buying into a Christian ethic...?

I mean, we should be concerned with telling people the Gospel, not legislating behavior.

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by acrossthesirion

I'm confused as to why a non-Christian is buying into a Christian ethic...?

same.

What reason would two unsaved people have for deciding to abstain after already being sexually active? If one were a Christian, I suppose that one may reach a point of being convicted and deciding to step away from the situation, but from there, it'd just be in God's hands.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by athanatos

I have a question, and this may get complicated. I think it has been hit on by some people before, but the thread either got ugly or too personal (or both). Regardless, I hope someone can be accurate with their answers, and Biblical support is always, always the ideal.

If someone is unmarried, unsaved and is having sex occasionally with someone else who is in the same situation, then I believe that they should stop having sex. But what from there? Should they break ties, still be friends, go straight to courting, get married? Is there another option? Does the answer depend on if the sin will likely arise again, or on something else? I think that sex should always be balanced with other commitments, and not without them. (If you think otherwise, explain why.)

I am going to take a somewhat edgy position here.

Why? Why should they stop sinning according to scripture, if they do not place any worth in the blood of Christ. I mean, the Koran tells me I shouldn't eat pork, but I love me some ham. First things first, why should this external sin be a concern?

As Jesus said, wash the inside of the cup, and the outside will be clean as well.

Fixing the sin without fixing the sinner will at best lead to self-righteousness and denial of the need for a savior.

So really, the fundamental basis of this part of the question is flawed. What they do is really largely irrelevant. What "should" they do? Probably get married. Will they, honestly, probably not. Without Christ, you would be like a Muslim telling me to stop eating pork. I know they believe it is wrong, and I really don't care. I do not think eating pork is wrong, so I ignore the argument.

Oh! Then it occurred to me, what if one of them is a Christian? Does that change the answer?

(obviously this is a messed up scenario, so I can't imagine a lot of good; but what is best?)

Entirely. This is a messed up scenario and I see us essentially weighing the consequences.

1) They have sinned by having sex with this person.
2) They should care what scripture says.
3) Scripture says they should not be unequally yolked with an unbeliever.
4) Just leaving this person seems heartless, cruel, and brutal after essentially using them.

So the conundrum is, is it worse then to marry an unbeliever, or to abandon someone you had sex with, and have joined yourself to. Simple answer is this. You have put yourself in a catch 22. I can see good and bad with both sides.

[Ridley's Own]

Would someone explain to me what the difference between the above-described situation and normal, proper Christian marriage? WIth the exception of a ceremony, what is the practical difference? And if a 'ceremony' is the thing, would someone please find, scripturally, where a ceremony is required to be considered married?

I'm not arguing for fornication... I'm just not sure our understanding of what 'marriage' consists of is actually a reflection of what the Biblical cultures would have had.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Would someone explain to me what the difference between the above-described situation and normal, proper Christian marriage? WIth the exception of a ceremony, what is the practical difference? And if a 'ceremony' is the thing, would someone please find, scripturally, where a ceremony is required to be considered married?

It doesn't have a commitment to the church to be faithful to each other. This isn't necessarily our contemporary wedding ceremony, and often times (most of the time?) a wedding ceremony has nothing to do with a community (the church) blessing a commitment. Side note: I'm actually in favor of removing "marriage" from the political (in the narrow sense) "sphere" in favor of different kinds of civil unions of dependency (co-dependency, guardian-dependency, etc...).

When the bible speaks about marriage, it's does so under an assumed idea of marriage. It doesn't lay out specific practices or ceremonies that make a marriage. However, if the church is going to be our source of political (in the broad sense) identity, the accountability not only needs to extend between the couple, but to the community as well.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Would someone explain to me what the difference between the above-described situation and normal, proper Christian marriage? WIth the exception of a ceremony, what is the practical difference? And if a 'ceremony' is the thing, would someone please find, scripturally, where a ceremony is required to be considered married?

I'm not arguing for fornication... I'm just not sure our understanding of what 'marriage' consists of is actually a reflection of what the Biblical cultures would have had.

I'll bite.

The Torah, very clearly lays out what to do when a couple has sex before marriage. I do not think we should institute stonings, but the fact is... there is a distinct difference between sex and marriage in the Torah.

1 Corinthians 7 talks about marrying rather than burning. In each case the culture had an idea of marriage based on vow.

When we look at marriage instituted in the garden, there is a 3 part command

1) leave father and mother
2) Cling to your wife
3) the 2 shall become one flesh.

Kind of divied up, that sounds like setting yourself apart from your former situation
making a commitment to your wife, and then having sex.

Biblically every time a marriage occurs it involves a vow.

Malachi's statements on divorce betraying your vow to the wife of your youth come to mind.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

When we look at marriage instituted in the garden, there is a 3 part command

1) leave father and mother
2) Cling to your wife
3) the 2 shall become one flesh.

Kind of divied up, that sounds like setting yourself apart from your former situation
making a commitment to your wife, and then having sex.

This seems like more of a description of marriage itself rather than the ceremony though. I think Ridley's right to point out the idealization of the ceremony in contemporary society.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

You ignored 2 things though.

1) the rest of the post.

2) The fact that even marriage itself is more than sex.

I think the fact that you think we idealize ceremony now, and apparently not in the ANE shows a distinct lack of knowledge about ANE cultures. There was ceremony for how you sold land, how you did everything from womb to tomb. We live in a society which currently devalues ceremony.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

When we look at marriage instituted in the garden, there is a 3 part command

1) leave father and mother
2) Cling to your wife
3) the 2 shall become one flesh.

Again, maybe I'm missing something here, but what makes this any different than what is described in the OP. The only thing I'm seeing that's missing (as Across notes) isan issue of vows (which I think is the key thing here).

I guess I'm able to answer my own question and say, 'the public exchange of vows' is what 'marriage' marriage, and not just shacking up; and what the cohabiting couple is 'missing' in this case. But it has to be said on some level that the couple in the OP are living as a marriaed couple on a practical level. And I'm not sure I can find 'vows' in the sense that we use them in the marraige service today as a scriptural dictat.

The problem, I think, is that there's some question whether that's what made marriage marriage inthe ANE and not just an exchange of property (which is something that we have, thankfully, moved past).

I suppose I'm wondering whether the issue of sex and marriage is an issue of property; ie,, it's wrong to 'steal' from the father in a sexual relationship rather than something intrisically wrong about sex outside of marriage itself. And if that's the case, and we no longer regard women as property, then how does that affect the way we view marriage and sexuality. Again, I'm not advocating anything, just asking some questions.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Again, maybe I'm missing something here, but what makes this any different than what is described in the OP. The only thing I'm seeing that's missing (as Across notes) isan issue of vows (which I think is the key thing here).

Other than the whole, lack of public leaving of one family to form another?
Or the whole commitment that is implied in the word cleaving?

Essentially, what the OP described is what is known in my area as ****buddies in secular circles. Sex, in my opinion is only the third part of that command, and thus is missing 2/3 of the equation.

There is NO commitment in the OP, thus a failure to cleave. There is no necessary indication that the person has left ties to family, either in the original situation.

I guess I'm able to answer my own question and say, 'the public exchange of vows' is what 'marriage' marriage, and not just shacking up; and what the cohabiting couple is 'missing' in this case. But it has to be said on some level that the couple in the OP are living as a marriaed couple on a practical level. And I'm not sure I can find 'vows' in the sense that we use them in the marraige service today as a scriptural dictat.

The problem, I think, is that there's some question whether that's what made marriage marriage inthe ANE and not just an exchange of property (which is something that we have, thankfully, moved past).

I suppose I'm wondering whether the issue of sex and marriage is an issue of property; ie,, it's wrong to 'steal' from the father in a sexual relationship rather than something intrisically wrong about sex outside of marriage itself. And if that's the case, and we no longer regard women as property, then how does that affect the way we view marriage and sexuality. Again, I'm not advocating anything, just asking some questions.

I would have to say that the couple in the OP's example are not living as a married couple AT ALL. The issue of security is huge and I dare say, the mistake of confusing sex with marriage cannot be made by anyone in a remotely healthy marriage, because there is so much more to marriage than sex.

I know a lot of my wife's coworkers who cohabitate, and they are very blunt, being in the medical proffession on matters of sexuality. Lets just say, there are vast, indescribable differences in how they view the relationship. (temporary vs permanent, matters of comittment, etc.)

Also, I will note that nowhere in scripture is a woman regarded as her father's property in matters of marriage. The key thing is vows. But the impact of vows, and permanence in a relationship is far more even than sex.

I really think, only unmarried men view this sex = marriage thing with any sense of actually believing it, because, when you are actually married, there are a host of other factors in the relationship.

Scripture assumes vows. That is clear by going to the malachi passage I mentioned, because a divorce is a violation of one's vows to the wife of their youth. Scripture, (unfortunately) assumes the readers know what a marriage is. It never seeks to objectively define it, which is what you are looking for.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

You ignored 2 things though.

1) the rest of the post.

2) The fact that even marriage itself is more than sex.

I'm not sure how #2 relates, my point was marriage has an assumed definition when it's used in Scripture. As you pointed out, in the situation presented there is no indication of commitment which was also my distinction. I guess I was trying to make your post say something it wasn't.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I think the fact that you think we idealize ceremony now, and apparently not in the ANE shows a distinct lack of knowledge about ANE cultures. There was ceremony for how you sold land, how you did everything from womb to tomb. We live in a society which currently devalues ceremony.

I didn't make any claims about how marriage was viewed in any society other than our own...

Maybe idealization was the wrong word, but with the amount of money spent on weddings (it has it's own industry) what are you going to call it? Marketization?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Essentially, what the OP described is what is known in my area as ****buddies in secular circles. Sex, in my opinion is only the third part of that command, and thus is missing 2/3 of the equation.

Ah.. After reading this I re-read the OP, and I'm with it, now. I was underthe impression this was a stable, committed relationship being discussed, not casual sex...

In that case, then, I want to be actually much stronger on this than what others have been... This kind of thing is exploitation, pure and simple. And it doesn't matter whether you're Christian or not, using people for sexual pleasure is wrong.

Also, I will note that nowhere in scripture is a woman regarded as her father's property in matters of marriage. The key thing is vows. But the impact of vows, and permanence in a relationship is far more even than sex.

I'm not convinced that culturally that makes any difference. The Hebrews didn't live in a vacuum, and the Torah wasn't written in a vacuum, either. It's infathomable to me to think that cultural values didn't creep into it. If there is no property issue here, then why are doweries customary? And why are we paying the father for instances of rape or fornication?

And even if that is the case, certainly by the time of the Reformation this attitude is prevalent. Cranmer had to be talked into allowing the marriage service of the BCP to be done INSIDE the church building (originally it was to take place on the steps of teh chruch), because he felt it was more a legal/business transaction than a Christian service.

I really think, only unmarried men view this sex = marriage thing with any sense of actually believing it, because, when you are actually married, there are a host of other factors in the relationship.

I think I find this incredibly condescending. I'm a fairly smart guy; I know there's more to it than sex. I'm not claiming that having sex=marriage. I'm wondering why we single men and women keep getting told that marriage = me in a tux + her in a dress standing before a cleric.

Scripture assumes vows. That is clear by going to the malachi passage I mentioned, because a divorce is a violation of one's vows to the wife of their youth. Scripture, (unfortunately) assumes the readers know what a marriage is. It never seeks to objectively define it, which is what you are looking for.

Vows, I agree on. MY question is ths: if Scripture is non-commital on what marriage objectively is, then why are we hung up on two people who are living together, sharing all three of the points of marriage, but who haven't stood up in a church and said so.

[jthomas1600]

Here's the main difference I see between Biblical marriage and simply living together. In Biblical marriage there was no sexual relations, then there was a commitment for life, then there was sexual relations. I know there may be a few exceptions, but I would wager that the majority (maybe 90+%) of living together situations did not start this way. Most situations where people are living together started with dating, then sex, then living together.

In cases where two Christians are living together before marriage, many Pastors that I know personally will expect the couple to change their living situation for a period of time prior to being married. They need to repent, and one of them can go stay with a parent or friend prior to the marriage. Other Pastors may just ask that they quit having sex....sure, right. This is unlikely to happen if they are still living together.