Christian question I can't ask people I know

[8circles]

The very worst sin is the one we are personally not tempted by. ;)

 

I love this. This should be on a t-shirt. Okay, I have said that twice today already, maybe I need to open a t-shirt shop.

 

I would totally buy one. Actually more than one so I could always have one clean & ready to wear.

[Amy in NH]

That is how I was reading it when I was studying the middle ages. The "marriage" was consummated before the priest made it official. But it would still require an anullment if the priest never made it before one could marry someone else. The consummation was the marriage and vows between christians and God.

 

I do believe some still feel this way. Although priests are readily available now in most places :)

 

I have recently finished reading the Mabinogion. There were a few occasions in that book where a woman went from being called a "maiden" to a "wife" due to having lost her virginity, In one case it was due to r@pe; the woman called herself a "wife".

 

But to me, that seems to be a social convention. According to the forward in the book, the stories in the Mabinogion were most likely pre-Christian in origin. How that social convention relates to Christian doctrine is unclear.

[milovany]

I have not read all the replies right now ...

 

And if you had (although I realize everyone has time constraints, self included!), you'd see she has talked to her. ;)

[Cricket]

Thank you for the response. This discussion is really helping me refine my thoughts.

 

1) thank you for the reminder about Hagar. Didn't she also remain a servant? she wasn't elevated in status was she? And what about the concubime/wife thing? This is a list for me to ponder, but if you have thoughts I would gladly hear them.

 

2) I have always taken Paul's words to be a warning against casual sex. Sort of an early version of 'you are sleeping with everyone your partner has ever slept with' thing. I took this as part of the wisdom literature about casual sex being a harm to society, but had not read it as being a violation of a covenant taken before God.

 

I am still hoping to get a link to the RC viewpoint, but I obviously need to incorporate this into my thoughts.

 

Thank you again for providing specific references.

 

This looks like an interesting read but I can't now since we have to go read some Macbeth now that lunch break is over! Although in the beginning it mentions that the Puritans saw marital sex as a necessary evil. My dad (a pastor) like to point out that in his readings of the Puritans he came across a case where a woman brought her husband before the elders because he was not performing his "husbandly duty." And the husband was reprimanded. :D

 

For the record, I'm not Roman Catholic so I don't know the official church position. I was just thinking that whatever the church's position was historically was probably the RC viewpoint historically. I hope that is clear as mud. ;)

 

ETA: The question of Solomon with wives AND concubines is interesting! Maybe concubines weren't what we think. I mean, could he really have relations with all those women?! lol

Edited September 12, 2011 by Cricket

[lionfamily1999]

:001_smile: I know what you mean. I appreciate the discussion because I know my thoughts aren't a perfect understanding.

 

Promiscous sex, prostitution etc are not good, I am not in favor of them. :lol: They damage society and individuals. We are clearly given societal requirements (wisdom literature) not to behave that way. This goes back to the original ponderings I had about the difference between wisdom literature and convenant law. Prostitution and pre-marital sex are not okay but they aren't the equivalent of adultery.

 

We are commanded to 'not commit adultery'.

 

The Biblical punishment for prostitution of stoning was more a civil law than a religious commandment.

 

Pokes holes in this at will. I appreciate bouncing these ideas off women who I know are actual 'thinkers' not just those who parrot what someone has told them. That is why I enjoy hanging around this board even though my homeschooling years are almost over.

Do you consider what is in the New Testament as rules to follow, or only the commandments?

Thank you for the response. This discussion is really helping me refine my thoughts.

 

1) thank you for the reminder about Hagar. Didn't she also remain a servant? she wasn't elevated in status was she? And what about the concubime/wife thing? This is a list for me to ponder, but if you have thoughts I would gladly hear them.

Sarai chased her off once and an angel sent her back. Then, when Isaac came along Hagar left for good with her son. Looking into concubine... short answer "spoils of war, belonged to a man without having the rights of a wife." I have to wonder why they would not just say "slave" since that (imo) is what that is. IOW, why the differentiation of saying she did not have the rights of a wife? Interesting thought :D

2) I have always taken Paul's words to be a warning against casual sex. Sort of an early version of 'you are sleeping with everyone your partner has ever slept with' thing. I took this as part of the wisdom literature about casual sex being a harm to society, but had not read it as being a violation of a covenant taken before God.

He goes on to talk about marrying virgins. He doesn't mention marrying non-versions except to say a woman whose husband dies can remarry. Then, does prostitution or pre-marital sex mean you are no longer marraige material? Imo, when he goes through the reasons to marry it sure seems like the need to have sex is one of them. If it was alright to have casual sex though, sex without commitment, then why would Paul (who thought we shouldn't marry unless we really had to) say that if you couldn't controll yourself go ahead and get married?

I am still hoping to get a link to the RC viewpoint, but I obviously need to incorporate this into my thoughts.

 

Thank you again for providing specific references.

Sure thing. I didn't know if you wanted them, except that part about Abram and Sarai... also, take note, they hadn't changed their names yet. The covenant hadn't been confirmed when Abraham did that.

[Denise in Florida]

Do you consider what is in the New Testament as rules to follow, or only the commandments?

 

Yes, I do consider the Jesus' teachings in the New Testament to be commandments. But I do not consider Paul's teachings (such as women not teaching in church) to be the equivalent of Jesus' commandments such as the Greatest Commandment to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves.

 

In fact this might be where my dicotomy of wisdom teaching vs. covenant with God may come from. hmmmm

 

Sure thing. I didn't know if you wanted them, except that part about Abram and Sarai... also, take note, they hadn't changed their names yet. The covenant hadn't been confirmed when Abraham did that.

 

:lol: yeah, it was just a convenient shorthand rather than saying, "The old testament Patriarch latterly known as Abraham" :lol:

 

I have never had the impression that Sarah and Hagar were considered equals in marriage with Abraham. This may be a failing on my part, it just seemed to me that even though they had had sex and shared a child she was still 'the help' not the mistress of the house.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh dear, how annoying, my family expects to get fed even though there is awesome stuff going on on the internet. :rolleyes:

[Heather in Neverland]

I have never ever heard anyone who was a Christian call s*x outside of marriage anything other than a sin. Even Christians who I know have s*x out of marriage still acknowledge that it is a sin - they just want to do it anyway.

 

:iagree:

[justamouse]

The same way I "reconcile" having a fourth donut when three was too many, or using my cell phone while driving even though it's against the law in my state. Because I want to. Lord have mercy on us all. And I agree with Chucki, the sacrament of confession/repentance is the tool the Lord gave his Church to battle these issues. When I was not in a sacramental church, it was much easier to continue sinning by choice. No one was "checking" me. Now that I am confessing my sins out loud to another person, I see change happening very much.

 

Like night and day. It's like magic, but it's not. I love reconciliation, and try to go every two weeks (it's a family habit) and let me tell you, knowing I'm going to have to ask forgiveness really cuts down on my justifying ___.

[Rosie_0801]

so by engaging in premarital sex you are in actuality "marrying" and "divorcing" many people.

 

Or the same person repeatedly? 'Premarital sex' is not synonymous with 'casual sex.'

 

Rosie

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

I have not read all the replies right now, but if this is a DEAR FRIEND, why would you NOT ask her these questions? As a Christian we are to go to our brothers and sisters in Christ when they are struggling, even if they don't recognize it, and speak to them. Wouldn't you rush to your friend if she were burning on fire and throw water on her? The same applies to a friend that is living as an adulterer, sinner, etc. She is missing out of the blessings the Lord has to offer her, and the ultimate peace that she will only find when she is living her life according to the way God planned for us to live. If she is truly a Christian, then she cannot be feeling peace in her heart, and it will only be unsettling to her until she reconciles with it.

 

As her friend, it is your duty to beseech her with love.

 

My dear friend (using as a euphemism for close relative) as well as the majority of our family belongs to a very legalistic, they-are-the-only-true-church. I got out of there at 18 an moved to a more mainstream church, which they see as me turning my back on God. NOTHING I have to say regarding religious/spiritual/morality issues is received well from me, even if on that specif topic we agree 90% on :banghead: Any attempt on my part to "rebuke in love" is NOT going to be seen that way. And...I grew up with this person and we did NOT get along. It took 6 years of living apart and barley talking before we got past it. So now our conversations are all about safe topics. I have a hunch that since she got baptized last year she has stopped having teA with her boyfriends, but I do not know for certain. It has been hard, in that area we went in opposite directions; I kept to what I felt was what the Bible says to do, she didn't, and yet I was the one being judged as turning my back on God :confused: I asked this question originally to better understand her.

[Medstudent]

The same way people tell lies (white or not), occasionally disrespect their parents, steal someone's pencil, don't eat lamb at certain times of the year, don't go to Mass every Sunday, don't appreciate God's gifts every day...

 

everyone breaks some rule. Many feel the no you-know-what before marriage rule is just one of the many and can't understand why it's always harped on so much. Why not be militant about people telling lies or stealing other people's writing equipment or yelling at their parents? Why not be mad at people who covet their neighbor's wife (but don't act on it)? It's one sin of many (heck it's not even in the 10 commandments), we now have some great ways to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancy, and it makes people happier, healthier and more relaxed.

[Caitilin]

I believe that the RCC's position is that the couple marries itself (ie. I marry myself to you and you marry marry yourself to me); the priest is there to provide the church's blessing on the marriage into which the couple has entered. Thus the priest does not actually marry the couple; he witnesses and blesses it. :001_smile:

 

Canon law says:

 

Can.* 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

 

§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Caitilin

[Denise in Florida]

I believe that the RCC's position is that the couple marries itself (ie. I marry myself to you and you marry marry yourself to me); the priest is there to provide the church's blessing on the marriage into which the couple has entered. Thus the priest does not actually marry the couple; he witnesses and blesses it. :001_smile:

 

Canon law says:

 

Can.* 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

 

§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.

 

Does this mean it has to be a concious decision? The act of will would seem to imply more than just sexual contact as does the word covenant. This seems to support the idea that marriage does not require an outside officiant in order to be valid, but it also implies that you don't accidently marry someone just by sleeping with them.

 

Thank you for providing the excerpts from Canon Law.

[ElizaG]

In the RC tradition, hasn't the teaching been that the very sex act is what consummates the marriage? Isn't that the basis for an annulment, if consummation does not take place? I believe part of the traditional church teachings about sex is that the act itself is the forming of a covenant between two people; so by engaging in premarital sex you are in actuality "marrying" and "divorcing" many people. I need to read more on the subject but that was always my understanding.

I don't think that the bolded part is a Catholic teaching. It sounds to me as if someone was taking an analogy a bit too far. :001_huh:

 

The way it's phrased in canon law is that the marriage is ratified when the couple makes the commitment, and consummated afterward. Both steps are needed, so it's not something you can do by accident. ;) There are other things needed, too, including an eligible couple (one man & one woman, not too closely related, etc.), the intention to have a permanent and exclusive relationship, and openness to children.

 

For couples in which one or both members are Catholic, the Church feels responsible for making sure these criteria are met. Thus, the marriage won't be recognized as valid if it's done without the Church's involvement. In our time, this typically includes an interview to make sure the couple is eligible, some sort of marriage preparation class, and having a representative of the Church as a witness at the wedding.

 

For non-Catholic couples, the Church tends to give them the benefit of the doubt and presume that the marriage is valid unless proven otherwise.

 

(This is the simplified version. There are marriage tribunals to deal with complicated cases.)

 

 

ETA: Just to clarify, the Church does not send an inspector to make sure the marriage was consummated! Though it's my understanding that some other religious and cultural traditions have done this.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Eleanor

[Momto3indians]

We see Him as a God of love but He is also a God of vengeance. He is real ....He left us His Word and that is not a 'grey' area to mull over and have one's own opinion on.

[lionfamily1999]

Oh dear, how annoying, my family expects to get fed even though there is awesome stuff going on on the internet. :rolleyes:

Do you consider what is in the New Testament as rules to follow, or only the commandments?

 

Yes, I do consider the Jesus' teachings in the New Testament to be commandments. But I do not consider Paul's teachings (such as women not teaching in church) to be the equivalent of Jesus' commandments such as the Greatest Commandment to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves.

 

In fact this might be where my dicotomy of wisdom teaching vs. covenant with God may come from. hmmmm

 

Sure thing. I didn't know if you wanted them, except that part about Abram and Sarai... also, take note, they hadn't changed their names yet. The covenant hadn't been confirmed when Abraham did that.

 

:lol: yeah, it was just a convenient shorthand rather than saying, "The old testament Patriarch latterly known as Abraham" :lol:

 

I have never had the impression that Sarah and Hagar were considered equals in marriage with Abraham. This may be a failing on my part, it just seemed to me that even though they had had sex and shared a child she was still 'the help' not the mistress of the house.

Well, their names were Abram and Sarai before the covenant. What I meant was, his covenant with God had not been confirmed or sealed when he did that with Hagar. I think, when the covenant was finalized, so to speak :p, that Hagar's position was changed, and I'm not sure she was ever equal to Sarai or Sarah. I'm pretty sure in all/most polygamous situations one wife takes precidence over the rest.

 

If you look, you'll see prostitution is pretty well reviled throughout the NT. It's not just Paul. In Revelations the whore of Babylon, the prostitute that slept with all the kings and brought sexual immorality to all, is called both a whore and a prostitute (I say this because I think the difference between the two is money, right?). I know that prostitution was a side street to what we were discussing, but it seems like the first hurdle to cross iykwIm.

 

While Christ did forgive the prostitute for her sins, when they'd lined up to stone her (he who is without sin...), he also told her to go and "sin no more." Well, if prostitution is alright, then why would she need to be forgiven and why the admonishment not to sin anymore? I've always assumed he meant that she should go and not prostitute herself anymore.

[Denise in Florida]

oops I almost missed this response,

 

 

Well, their names were Abram and Sarai before the covenant. What I meant was, his covenant with God had not been confirmed or sealed when he did that with Hagar. I think, when the covenant was finalized, so to speak :p, that Hagar's position was changed, and I'm not sure she was ever equal to Sarai or Sarah. I'm pretty sure in all/most polygamous situations one wife takes precidence over the rest.

 

I hadn't considered that difference between before and after, thanks. Yes, all wives are not equal.

 

The Abram/Hagar thing tracks back to the question about did sex create a 'marriage'. There was a later post from the RC perspective that seemed to support that marriage was the commitment between man and wife not the action of the officiant. Please note I am paraphrasing so I hope I am keeping with the original intent. The position also seemed to imply that the marriage required intent.

 

I am not sure where that ended up. :001_smile: It is an important question though since I feel there is a huge difference between having sex with someone you are not married to and cheating on a spouse (adultery) which I contend does not even require physical sexual contact but can include emotional cheating.

 

Whew, this is getting hard to keep track of. :001_smile: Thank you again for sticking with me and providing thoughtful responses.

 

 

If you look, you'll see prostitution is pretty well reviled throughout the NT. It's not just Paul. In Revelations the whore of Babylon, the prostitute that slept with all the kings and brought sexual immorality to all, is called both a whore and a prostitute (I say this because I think the difference between the two is money, right?). I know that prostitution was a side street to what we were discussing, but it seems like the first hurdle to cross iykwIm.

 

I am definitly not up on Revelations this is one book my denomiation does not spend much time on. Yes, I agree that prostitution is bad, it causes definite harm physically and socially.

 

While Christ did forgive the prostitute for her sins, when they'd lined up to stone her (he who is without sin...), he also told her to go and "sin no more." Well, if prostitution is alright, then why would she need to be forgiven and why the admonishment not to sin anymore? I've always assumed he meant that she should go and not prostitute herself anymore.

 

Really good point. Although I think there is a difference between prostitution and pre-marital sex. We also do not have the full story of what happened during that event. I have always assumed Jesus knew more about the situation than the reader does. This includes the writing in the sand. But I do believe he forgave her and told her to stop sinning.

 

I will repeat that I am not a fan of casual sex, prostitution or sex outside of a committed covenant. I just do not see pre-marital sex as the same as adultery.

 

I will also clarify that I do not believe there are levels of sin, there aren't better or worse sins. I have gotten a lot out of this conversation, thanks.

 

 

I have a quick side track on this theme. Did the Bible acknowledge the difference between an unmarried woman who had sex and a prostitute? Was a woman having sex a sexual matter or a property matter (in that sexual relations were the property of her husband-to-be)? I do not know the answers to these so I am not 'fishing' I am really asking.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Denise in Florida
posted to soon

[Scarlett]

The same way people tell lies (white or not), occasionally disrespect their parents, steal someone's pencil, don't eat lamb at certain times of the year, don't go to Mass every Sunday, don't appreciate God's gifts every day...

 

everyone breaks some rule. Many feel the no you-know-what before marriage rule is just one of the many and can't understand why it's always harped on so much. Why not be militant about people telling lies or stealing other people's writing equipment or yelling at their parents? Why not be mad at people who covet their neighbor's wife (but don't act on it)? It's one sin of many (heck it's not even in the 10 commandments), we now have some great ways to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancy, and it makes people happier, healthier and more relaxed.

 

Coveting can't really be monitored by humans. It is part of self-honesty.

 

As for sexual immorality....or any other sin....it is the practice of such sin. If we lie and we lie to everyone, every day with no sense of remorse then that is WRONG. It is a sin. It is a practice.

 

So how does that relate to sexual immorality? If you have a boyfriend and you regularly engage in TeA with no attempt to avoid situations that will lead to TeA...then that is a sin. It is a practice.

 

It is one of those sins that 'appears' to hurt no one and it feels so good (especially when one's conscience has been seared as Jean mentioned)....and in a marriage situation is perfectly ok and even expected....but that fact is that sex is for MARRIED men/women.

[Daisy Mommy]

This is something I have often wondered, but I can't ask anyone I know without hurting their feelings. I'm not judging, but I am curious how practicing Christian justify having...teA...with someone they are not married to. I like to think I know my Bible pretty well, but is there something in there that lets some people think it's okay? Because I was strictly brought up to believe that it's a sin. (Which may or may not be labeled as such in the Bible.)

 

You can PM me if you want, but there were other Christianity questions being asked, so it seemed like a good time.

 

um I sinned a lot when I was younger...lol

 

I knew I was sinning but I just figured it was ok because everyone sins on a regular basis anyways so what makes my sin so special...

 

I'm a bit ashamed of that now that I'm a slightly stronger christian.

 

I just don't judge people that do that outside of marriage because I feel like I make my own bad choices everyday so I'm not perfect enough to cast a stone at someone else...

 

I know plenty of "Christians" that I have caught: lying, stealing, saying rude things about others, being jealous ect...and that's not even counting what's going on inside their heads...

 

For me being a christian isn't about being perfect, following a checklist, going to church...It's about knowing I'm a sinner, admitting it, asking forgiveness, and doing my best to obey my lord and savior out of the love and gratitude I have for him.

[Carpe]

I am not Christian, but many of my Christian friends do not consider pre-marital sex to be a sin.

 

On the prostitute front, I assumed it was sinful because the men are likely married. I would not consider it a sin, nor immoral, for an unmarried person to pay for (or accept money for) consensual sexual acts with an unmarried person. Honestly, for a lot of people, dating is like that. He takes me out for dinner 5 times and then I'll sleep with him. That sort of thing.

 

And some feminists consider traditional marriage itself to be essentially prostitution. A woman marries a man and he pays all her bills and she sleeps with him. :glare:

 

It's all very complicated. If I were in the position of the OP, I would offer my friend love and support, knowledge to be safer and hope it's a phase that won't scar her much.

[AngelBee]

I have never ever heard anyone who was a Christian call s*x outside of marriage anything other than a sin. Even Christians who I know have s*x out of marriage still acknowledge that it is a sin - they just want to do it anyway.

 

:iagree: