I have NEVER EVER met any Christians that have waited to have sex until marriage.(only great grandparents -possibly) I thought my nieces would hold through and found they did not either. I'm kind of disappointed but I understand.

I'm sure there are a few needles in the haystack like PA> that wait till marriage but I have never met ONE !

I mean what's the point then ? This is where the hypocrisy comes in. If your'e not living it yourself then you HAVE NO RIGHT whatsoever TO PREACH , NOT ALONE QUOTE BIBLE verses (in principle)

Hypocrisy is immoral IMO


And yes, I also WANT (almost demand) an explanation why pedophelia is not SPECIFICALLY condemned or forbidden in the 10 commandments/Bible (or Quran ?) for that matter.

Sorry PA just saw this post

The Bible forbids all forms of sex outside of marriage. Somthing tells me taht would include pedophilia, though it isn't mentioned explicitly. In the days when the Bible was written, people were married at 11/12/13 years of age, basically as soon as they could produce children of their own. That is how it was in those days. Today, if someone has sex with a 12-year old it's considered disgusting and immoral.

That said, I think the view of pedophilia in the Church has been inflated by the media. Statistically speaking, as far as professions go, statistics say that for the number of people becoming priests, the numbers of them accused of sexual crimes are much lower than with doctors and teachers. The differene is that the media doesn't tell you about all the school teachers who are accused/convicted of sexual assault.

Thank you.
That is why I will probably end up marrying another Christian

Well, I would be the patient kitty I have always been and wait it out, after there is always the alternative. Seeing as how this young tiger has yet to have that experience, why not wait, would make it all the more worth it.

I know she wasn't trying to be offensive. No one sets out to insult people on purpose (well, some do, but we call them "trolls" and ban them when we see that happeneing). Nevertheless, that is how she came across in that post, and also in the past - when we first met on these boards and she found out I was a virgin - specifically stated that I was "hiding behind my Faith" because I couldn't get any sex. Though a lot has changed between us since that time, her views now don't reflect on me, but rather on the author who wrote those laws. It is completely forgetting that in that day and age, people were married at young ages (read my previous post), so the concept of going through puberty and not having to "wait" generally did not exist. fast-forward a few millenia and we have a society that is leaving it longer and longer until marriage. We could therefore make an argument that the laws on sex-before-marriage are only applicable back then at a time when people were having their needs met when they got to a sexually active age whereas today we don't. But I think that would be to break the spirit of the Law in which it was written.

Regardless, Geri has a problem with pedophilia not specifically and explicitly mentioned, she even made a thread about it in the past, and now this thread is turning in that direction also. I don't supppose the Bible condemning all forms of pre-marital/extra-marital sex counts as explicit enough for some people, even though this would cover pedophilia - the concept, if not the specific action.

So if you agree that sex with a 12 year old is disgusting and immoral, doesn't that lead you to conclude that a lot of the Bible is so culturally and historically specific as to render it semi-useless as a guide for life?

If you are only following parts that sit somewhat comfortably with today’s cultural expectations are there really any parts that will remain untouched?

Not at all. I am simply pointing out that there are things in the Bible rooted within the culture it was written in and since our culture is different, it is actually wrong to just say "Ok, Bible passage says x, so therefore we must do x". That's not to say that a lot fo the Bible is culturally irrelevant to us, but rather that we must look at what was written in the context of that culture to see how it applies to us today. If we lived in a culture that still relied on a large turnover of population, then having children young would not be immoral. Some countries today still have marriages that young, if for no other reason tahn to produce hands to work the farms as people die of sickness and disease. For them, it is quite the norm. For our Western culture (and I'm assuming that most people on these forums come from a culture opulent enough to have regular internet access and a mortality rate that generally gives you more than 30-35 years of life), these difficulties do not exist. As such, people are getting married later and later. Generally people don't see a moral dilemma with sex before marriage. I do, as do many Christians.

Here is some good advice concerning sex before marriage.

Who exactly is saying that they must stone her to death ? Anyone know ? And why so ?

Pick your favorite bible below so we don't have to hear "I don't like that bible"

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
they must take the girl to the entrance of her father's house. The men of her city must stone her to death because she has committed such a godless act in Israel: She had sex before marriage, while she was still living in her father's house. You must get rid of this evil.

King James Bible
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

American King James Version
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she has worked folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shall you put evil away from among you.

American Standard Version
then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.

Bible in Basic English
Then they are to make the girl come to the door of her father's house and she will be stoned to death by the men of the town, because she has done evil and put shame on Israel, by acting as a loose woman in her father's house: so you are to put away evil from among you.

Douay-Rheims Bible
They shall cast her out of the doors of her father's house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee.

Darby Bible Translation
then they shall bring out the damsel unto the entrance of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought infamy in Israel, committing fornication in her father's house; and thou shalt put evil away from thy midst.

English Revised Version
then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.

Webster's Bible Translation
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she may die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to be guilty of lewdness in her father's house: so shalt thou remove evil from among you.

World English Bible
then they shall bring out the young lady to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done folly in Israel, to play the prostitute in her father's house: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.

Young's Literal Translation
then they have brought out the damsel unto the opening of her father's house, and stoned her have the men of her city with stones, and she hath died, for she hath done folly in Israel, to go a-whoring in her father's house; and thou hast put away the evil thing out of thy midst.


http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-21.htm

Out of the ones listed, the NASB would probably be my favourite (the NASB, ESV and NIV are my copies of choice, generally speaking).

Who is speaking? Tradition dictates that it was Moses who wrote this book and all its laws. Who was speaking though? It is contentious as to whether this is God's Law (ie, Moses giving them God's Laws) or whether this was Moses' laws given with the Blessing of God (ie, Moses' laws, though granted permission by God). I would go with the latter of these interpretations, taking into consideration passages such as Jesus gives in Matthew 19:8 - where Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." (NIV). Though this passage from Jesus is concerning divorce, not virginity, Jesus equates many of the Laws as given by Moses (with God's blessing) because the heart of the Israelites were hard, but it was not so at the beginning, and should not be so.

Of this passage in particular, I would like to quote the "New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition" (this section is dealing with verses 13-22, not just verse 21, which is what you quoted) -

The issue here is whether a newly-married woman was a virgin at the time of her marriage. The law considers the situation in which the man accuses his new wife of unchastity, following his first intercourse with her. The accusation is by its nature hard to prove true or false. Nevertheless, provsion is made for a trial, and it is presumed that proof can be obtained.

The proof of her virginity may be the blood-stained sheet from the marriage-bed on the night of the consummation, or alternatively a sheet which showed evidence of recent menstruation, and, therefore, that the woman was not pregnant at the time of marriage. The latter is more likely to be availabel to the parents to prodcue.

If the charge is shown to be false, the man is punished, both by flogging and by payment of huge damages to the father of the woman. If the woman is found guilty, she is punished by death, because she has in effect committed adultery (cf v23-24).

The law on adultery concisely prescribes the death penalty for both offenders, inkeeping with the fact that adultery is a breach of the basic covenant law (Deuteronomy 5:18). Whether the law was carried out may have depended on the wronged husband's decision (Proverbs 6:32-35). The death penalty only applied if the offenders were caught "red-handed" (is found); an outlook common throughout the whole of the Ancient Near East.

*Quoted from the NBC, 21st Century Edition, 1998. pp 220*

The next few paragraphs of that article are very interesting and deal with the issue of adultery in a little further detail (verses 23-29 of this chapter), but while interesting, does not add a lot to the question you asked on verse 21 so I won't quote them. All the best,

So god is endorsing the laws of Moses or god those of Moses ? So you think this was/is acceptable ?

Are people aware of how many virgins do not bleed their first time ? How can god be so ignorant of this fact ?

And why must she be punished ? And men were just flogged ?

Deuteronomy is full of peculiar laws concerning sex. Did God think this was ever a good way to live?

Duckies, I can't believe it's all context.

Consider rape in Deuteronomy:

City Rape

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Yay kill someone who was raped because they were too afraid to cry out

Country Rape

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. -- Deuteronomy 22:25-27

Better to live in the country if there are rapists around.....

Of an unbetrothed virgin

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

You get to marry the rapist

Of prisoners of war

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18

So God ordained this?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/rape.html

That's how the reasoning goes. As for acceptable, I think for the society it was written for, yes. Marriage was something that kept the tribes together, and virginity ensured that bloodlines could be traced - a necessitiy considering that the prophecies concerning the Messiah deemed that the parents had to have certain lineages.

Then there is the added concession that weddings (unlike today) were not generally chosen by the man and woman but by their parents. The view went - "I'll give my son to your daughter for half your cows and a third of your goats". In response the other family would say "Agreed, but we also want one quarter of your chickens, 22 acres of your land, and 25% of the wool produced from your sheep". And so the bartering went on. Finally the deal is made, the couple are given to each other in marriage (Love - what's that??? they ask), and the consummation and subsequent child was the final signature on the "contract" between the two families.

Whichever way you look at it - spiritual (Messiah's line) or material (contracts between families), the marriage covenants and the laws surrounding adultery made perfect sense for the time.

In the modern era, while the laws still exist - ie, marriage is sacred, no sex unless it is with your bride, no divorce, etc - the punishments no longer apply for both reasons mentioned above - spiritual (Messiah has arrived through Jesus) and material (this fancy new thing called "love" rather than contractual obligations with parents).

You cut out the article I quoted (probably to make the quote a little shorter, but I assume you read it - did you also read the part where a bloody sheet from a recent Period is enough evidence - that is, it doesn't only hinge on there being no blood on the wedding sheet - there must be some kind of valid reason for making the accusation (eg, I saw Sally go behind the barn with young Billy the other day, and.... well, you get the idea). One could also say bloody sheets are pretty easily forged, even for that day and age, so even if the woman was unfaithful, finding "proof" that she was not (a bloody sheet) was not that hard to acquire.

This was speaking of the man accusing his wife of being unfaithful. If it was a false accusation, the woman's name has been slandered and he is flogged and pays massive reparations to the bride's family. If it is found true, in accordance with the law on adultery, she is killed. Note that in the very next verse, verse 22, if a man and a woman who are not married (or have other partners) are caught having sex, they are both put to death just as the Law dictates for adultery.

In short, the difference of verse 21 - if the man is wrong, he has slandered his wife's name (a crime not punishable by death in Old Testament, and is only flogged and made to pay reparations to the family). If he is right, then she is an adulteress, and as the very next verse suggests, all adulterers (male and female) should be put to death!!!!!!!

Since with the exception of the last verse you quoted, you just went through all the rest of what I was thinking "interesting" about the other article I quoted for MLOR earlier, I'll quote the rest of that section for you here. Try reading the first half (earlier post to MLOR) along with this one for the full commentary:

These verse are an extension of the law on adultery, because they cocern cases of intercourse between a man and a woman engaged to someone else. Wehther the case is rape or adultery depends on wehther the woman consented. In the town, her silence is taken as consent (vv23-24); in the country sheis given the benefit of the doubt, and only the man dies (vv25-27).

The law makes a distinction between a woman who is engaged and one who is not, in a way that is strange to the modern reader (vv28-29). That is because marriage laws in Israel were closely related to family and property laws. A man paid the father of his bride a substantial sum for his daughter's hand (see Exodus 22:16-17). When a man rapes or seduces a woman who is not yet engaged, however, there is a simple remedy; he must make her his wife, and pay for the priveledge also

*quoted from same source as previous post to MLOR - NBC, 21st Century Ed., 1998, pp220.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there is a cultural difference to consider, as well as historical/prophetic issues regarding these laws.

As for Numbers 31, that has been dealt with dozens of times in my time here. I don't want to go into details because it will derail this thread (which is about sex before marriage), and these debates on that particular verse always end in heavy arguing. Suffice it to say there are Old Testament Laws in Deuteronomy and Numbers that the Hebrews must subscribe to when dealing with prisoners. Unlike evilbible.com (I'm not sure if skepticsannotatedbible.com references it), these people were not raped, and could not be, since as the previous discourse mentioned, if they did, they would ahve to marry them and have them for life - Deuteronomy particularly deals with marrying a prisoner of war. No sexual advantage could be taken on these women without it being a complete violation of God's Law.

So anyway, what was that someone said about sex before marriage????

Thank you for that fine commentary PA. Now that we have firmly established that there are specific cultural and historical reasons for many things within the Bible, why can't sex before marriage be one of them?

Perhaps our culture has changed sufficiently for us to do away with that aspect as well, kinda like the marrying of 12 year olds. We have less children now, people get married later and later, there are more work/education opportunities for women (we are not 'property' to be sold into marriage) et cetera et cetera et cetera. Sex before marriage is not culturally frowned upon so much, therefore perhaps this too shall go the way of many 'culturally specific' things in the Bible.



I do get this part, but do all the laws still apply? And does Jesus specifically prohibit sex before marriage?

Sex is happening between everything and everyone, i don't find it sacred and i think you can have sex before marriage. I would probably wait but if she had more things that I can't do because SHE is christian, i would move on.

We speak a lot about the cultural context of the bible a lot on the boards and have concluded that some of it is now irrelevant. I'm wondering how relevant the sex before marriage part is, I think most of it had to with the society of that time. For example even outside Christianity in those times women were expected to be virgins until marriage, in certain customs the husband would hang the stained bed sheets from the honeymoon outside the window. In the old days being abstinent before marriage wasn't such a big deal because you got married at 13...you got married at almost the same time as you started getting interested in sex. Nowadays people get married at what? Mid to late twenties? Later?

I can't see how or why God would expect abstinence in this day and age.

I have tossed around that possibility. Considering that people go through puberty and deal with sexuality now when in the past puberty was when people became sexually active is one of the reasons one could argue that sex-before-marriage is no longer applicable. However, I believe that sex is one of the sacred things that bond man and woman together in mongamous, lifelong relationship. Despite the change in our culture, that still remains, and the reasons for sex still remains, whcih is not enjoyment (well, enjoyment is a big part of it, but not the primary aspect to it, if ya know what I mean).

For the first, I don't know how to answer whether all the laws still apply without further clarification. Certainly the laws do still exist, but there meaning may no longer be the same (fulfilled) or perhaps they are cultural or historical laws just for the Jews during their history. The only way to be sure is to read the Bible and see for yourself (and when I say "read the Bible", I don't just mean look at the one line and then extrapolate what it means directly to us today).

For the second, in Matthew 5, Jesus makes a speech that says that if you even look at a woman lustfully you have committed adultery in your heart. He clearly did not approve of sex before marriage.

Thanks, Belle

As I mentioned in my last post to Belle, I do see the logic in this argument. But that is only to take a superficial look at the law. to look at the reasoning behind the Law shows that there is a very clear and godly reason for people to have sex only within marriage.

that said, if you're a non-Christian, these laws won't apply to you, so it is up to your own conscience to act as you see fit. For Christians (well, for myself as a Christian), the clear view is that marriage is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman, and consummates a life-long relationship. Despite the age-difference that marriage occurs, those spiritual reasons still exist today as they did then.

At least, that's what I think the Bible's stance is on it.

The difficulty I have is trying to understand why premarital sex somehow makes marriage less sacred or hinders the life long relationship. Most of God's rules have reasoning behind them other then "I told you so", for example don't kill people, honor your parents, don't steal, do unto others, etc. all make sense whether your religious or not. I think God created the rule on abstinence because for that time it was a good rule for that society...I don't think it was necessarily a spiritual rule but one of his social rules. I always found it a bit silly that a Christian can't have sex with someone they are going to marry anyways...or why premarital sex is a no no but every other physical act is a go.

In short I don't see the big deal and don't believe God would continue to enforce a law that isn't really relevant anymore.

If you are going to marry them anyways and are sure of it there is no reason to wait IMHO. The problem arises in someone being sure they are going to marry someone but it does not work out then washes, rinses, and repeats. And this is only if they consider it a problem.



I am an imperfect Christian with many downfalls. The thing is if someone is willing to take anything from my experience it would be worth sharing it. Besides the feeling of emptiness within there has been much more turmoil, broken hearts, even ruined lives, I did not mention in the post. To do so would somehow even seem more personal and I am too vulnerable for such. We will always be tempted in life with things we learn are not the best for us and it is possible to not give in to all of them it took me a while to learn.



I do not look down on anyone after all I have been there myself. Do not get me wrong it is gratifying, the game, the romance, the play, the seduction, the moment, it is all fun, it is just that emptiness afterwards, and as I mentioned to fullywired there can be other turmoil, especially if one approaches sex as unhealthy as I have in the past. I did something wrong, I have hurt at least one person terribly in the end, myself and wife in the process, but as I gave a full range of approaches I have had myself, it is perfectly possible to like someone and not even move in that direction and keep it friends. I definitely understand my experience is not everyone's nor was my outlook. I did troll for the opposite sex but it does not mean others do. And again I do not look down on those who want to experiment before marriage. Personally I believe at least for me there is no reason to. Maybe I am just to the belief that I can make someone compatible, teach them what I want to be pleased in that manner, learn in the same vain what pleases them, and it is just about a willingness to cooperate, compromise, and be interested. Knowing this I wish I had waited and then had remained true through all these years. As I said though I do not look down but can understand someone who looks at it for fun, who has been hurt because of it, and that might count for more than someone who has never experienced either.



I admire your stance PA and hope you maintain your spiritual ideals which are not the same as regular ideals since there is not only the revelation of the Spirit but the help of it. It is not the believer that has changed but the world and it might not always be for the best. We have a problem within culture which on one end the cultural elders and authorities advocate waiting but the media at the same time offers a different message. All this leads to is conflicting messages, no consistency, and at times leaving our youth to learn for themselves, with no consistent example, and this can and does lead to some rather unhealthy views. Really though when it comes to some segments of society, they have a very dim view of all of Christianity, bible thumpers, Ned Flanders, and when we are portrayed in movies it is usually done in an exaggerated attempt to ridicule us and other stereotypes. Basically put the world does not understand us even if they think they are sophisticated enough to have us figured out. They have not a clue so their commentary always have to be taken with this understanding. This is definitely not a us vs them post but rather an understanding of both sides.

As I mentioned the media and the images it offers us. Sex is fun and looking sexual is beauty. I can see that. But I can also see the image of a Christian, especially females, modest dress, minimal makeup if any at all, is quite elegant, refreshing, captivating, and very beautiful, more than any other image. One does not have to sacrifice fashion either. Someone taking it to the next step and willing to wait know they have something special worth saving. It is understandable, it is beautiful, it is admirable, and I only wish I had been able to. I really had the cards stacked against me, with the media, especially the type of music I listened to, and my choice of friends, but this is not a cop-out I probably would have made the same choices on my own regardless since I have given in to many other fancies unrelated to this issue.



Very accurate as usual PA. It is not only Biblical culture that married as soon as the body was able to have children but every culture in the world. This was the norm in America not even 100 years ago. This has nothing to do with the culture of the Bible being antiquated but rather the advent of industrialization and the switch from agricultural settings to urbanization which is a very recent phenomenon in the world. All a city is in sociological terms is a place where the people do not grow their own food. This sets up new jobs that are required. Most of these require specialization and schooling. So in a modern context mankind has recently went from marrying at the natural age to prolonging it for some to even after graduate school or even when one already has established themselves in a career. All this means is we are not socializing our youth to be mature but prolonging adolescence. Adolescence in itself is a social construct and did not exist a few hundred years ago. There was not such thing as a teenager in world history. It is a modern invention. So while on the one hand we are attempting to keep the youth from marrying and even at the same time not giving them the tools to be mature on the other hand it is a battle of biological desire and the natural order of things for one to want love at the usual ages. This is a dichotomy with no solution. In summary society has changed and it is not always for the better regardless of the sentiments of the masses.

Hi cadetak,

I do see your view, but for me (and I guess for some other Christians) there is a deeply spiritual reason for sex as well. You mention that many of God's rules have sound reasoning behind them (eg, murder, honouring your parents, theft, etc). however, as I see, I think sex is also one of those things. However, in our modern society sex has been turned into something completely different and hence as a non-Christian you would ahve no problem with that. As a Christian, I still see sex as a sacred union between two people and don't think that God intended sex for multiple partners, and that does take into consideration the cultural factors of the age when people used to get married compared to now.

Thanks for the input in any case. All the best,

Clovis, despite the times we disagree with each other on various points of Christianity, I solemnly thank you for these comments. We don't always agree, but i will always consider you a brother in Christ. How's about a spiritual Pint of Lager between pals. Cheers,

And with that last round (on Clovis, naturally, since I'm scrounging wherever possible - honest-to-god, I'll take th next round *innocent whistle*) I'm heading off to bed. Early start tomorrow, and it's late. All the best, and thank you for your kind words and compassionate thoughts. All the best, my friend. It is also my sincere hope to hold to my own ideals until my marriage day (which I do hope will happen, despite anything else I might say).

~ PA

One side of this debate has not been mentioned it is the health side .It is good for you to have regular sex from a health point of view.if you don't believe me read here.



http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html



So beware you abstainers ,lest we have to write your epitaph on your gravestone as "Returned Unopened"




fullywired

what an interesting article, setting all that aside the unity of two becoming one there is nothing more beautiful, more fulfilling..... you do not need marrige for this nor is virginity the only avenue to this,that sex isn't meaningful unless you are a virign this is s simply not the case...... this is what we all find out eventually anyways...

its the bodys way of showing love... i have to say the attitudes we have as a culture are so harmful when it comes to sex... if its taught its a beautiful thing it is treated in that fashion...culturally we are a reflection of our fears and repressions and ignorance .. we have created some awful problems too from a basic lack of understanding and fear of some thing so beautiful ....

Unfortunately, some people believe that God created the head, arms, legs and torso and the devil put on the genitals.

oy vey i had not heard this one before Ex..... it saddens me how something so beautiful has been so corrupted due to clinging to ideas that have been founded in ignorance.....

Who said they should be put to death>god ???

Well PA, no matter how you explain it and what excuses there are it's just plain wrong and god could have stopped it.

Just because it fit with the times doesn't make it right.

And like I said god could have forbid the marrying of children. We know what can happen to their bodies all too often in childbirth. Again this shows blatant ignorance on the part of the biblical god. Marriage doesn't make pedophelia right. What good does children having children do for the well-being of the family when there is such a high mortality rate ? Absurd . And what is really absurd is that people are supposed to respect these scriptures because it's someone's belief. So if I have a faith that condemns the african race or homosexuals should that also be respected ? See what I mean ?

But I guess we don't have to agree on what is moral. If this is your morality and it is if you accept it >then hey what can I say ?

Why is there no new bible for these times ?

See here: Children Delivering Children

Births resulting from child marriages are said to be "too soon, too close, too many, or too late" (33). For example, a high percentage of girls in Ethiopia (25%), Uganda (42%), and Mali (45%) have given birth by the age of 18 compared with only 1% in Germany, 2% in France, and 10% in the United States (1). The problem with children delivering children is that the young mothers are at a significantly higher risk than older women for debilitating illness and even death. Compared with women >20 years of age, girls 10–14 years of age are 5–7 times more likely to die from childbirth, and girls 15–19 years of age are twice as likely (34). For example, in Mali, the maternal mortality rate for girls aged 15–19 is 178 per 100,000 live births and for women aged 20–34, only 32 per 100,000. In Togo, for the same age groups, these rates are 286 and 39, respectively (1). Reasons for these high death rates include eclampsia, postpartum hemorrhage, HIV infection, malaria, and obstructed labor. Obstructed labor is the result of a girl's pelvis being too small to deliver a fetus. The fetus's head passes into the vagina, but its shoulders cannot fit through the mother's pelvic bones. Without a cesarean section, the neonate dies, and the mother is fortunate if she survives. If sepsis or hemorrhage does not occur and the girl does survive, the tissue and bones of the neonate will eventually soften and the remains will pass through the vagina.

Many times, obstructed labor leads to fistulas; the pressure of the fetal head on the vaginal wall causes tissue necrosis, and fistulas develop between the vagina and the bladder or rectum after the necrotic tissue sloughs. More than 2 million adolescents are living with fistulas, and fistulas develop in ≈100,000 more each year (35). Girls ages 10–15 years are especially vulnerable because their pelvic bones are not ready for childbearing and delivery. Their risk for fistula is as high as 88% (36). Once a fistula is formed, fecal or urinary incontinence and peroneal nerve palsy may result and may lead to humiliation, ostracism, and resultant depression. Unless the fistula is surgically repaired, these girls have limited chances of living a normal life and bearing children.


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no11/06-0510.ht



So if god came down and told you to marry off your fragile 9yr. daughter (who has menstruated) to some man you feel is "good for her" and to create an heir ,would you do it ? And if your wife committed adultery would you accept it as moral to have her stoned to death because god feels it's the right thing to do ?

Maybe just maybe such is the consequence of god's genius idea to put a reproductive entertainment system between two sewer passages.

Sorry, but I'm still laughing over that Stupid Design thread/quote That's too funny

i would wait as long as they wanted because a relationship is not about sex to me. i dont think any relationship should be based on sex, but the love you have for one another

Good for you, but this doesn't work for most people they are intertwined.

You can get celibate love from your parents & children.

Why do you think people have sex hormones & chemistry ?

Just because we have sex before doesn't mean that we love less than you do.


I fooled around and fell in love.......................... is a theme song for many.

Alot of people can sense ahead of time that it will turn into something more and then again some people make the mistake of thinking it will lead to love

Some people have good instincts and some are just naive


I do feel that if you are very interested in someone to take it slow, it has worked for me but I still feel sex before marriage (if you are serious) is good advice

Strange as it may seem these laws made sense in the culture of the time and actually were a step towards the protection of women.
In a city if a woman did not call out, it was assumed she consented because if she did call out someone would come to help her. She might endanger her life by doing so, but still this was seen as an accceptable risk. In the country it was recognised that no one could hear a woman scream, and thus the law was differentt It recognised she might only endanger herself through pointless resistance ,with no one to hear her or come to her aid.
A man who slept with a virgin had to marry her and support her for the rest of her life(no one else in a small nomadic community could afford to support her, and she would never be able to marry another man once it was known she was not a virgin)

Virginity was important to establish paternity. While maternity is easily established; given the social and medical conditions of the time, the only way to ensure paternity was to prove a woman was a virgin on her wedding night. paternity was essential, given that family and clan were the only social and economic units of protection people had, and they did not want a cuckooo in their nest, so to speak. They wanted children with their own characteristics and believed that this could only be achieved through direct genetic descent(without understanding genetics obviously.)They though that by having their own children they would ensure personal characteristics and beliefs of their own, while babies born to another group would have innately different beliefs and characteristics.

The same applied to women prisoners. If it could be guaranteed that they would only bear tribal descendants, then they could live, and live as protected members of that tribe, but because of the propensity for feuds and revenge among tribes, it was common sense to kill all possible members of the other tribe in case they grew up, rebuilt their tribal structure and attacked you. It did not take much to upset the balance of survival for small nomadic tribes and no one was taking any chances. In this context the law actually protected these women who otherwise would have been wiped out, along with all the other members of their tribe.

Try reading the history of genghis khan, or that of other tribal peoples. None of this can be attributed to god, who actually tried to impose laws to civilise people, but to the socio- economic and cultural forces, and mores, in play at the time

Having regular and enthusiastic sex, by contrast, confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. (This assumes that you are engaging in sex without contracting a sexually transmitted disease.)

Quoted directly from the site you sourced, FW. Sex may very well be good for you, I'm sure there are many benefits of healthy sexual relationships. But then you've got this blighter of a thing called "STD's". And don't give me the "safe-sex" crap. Condoms only prevent some STD's. There are many other STD's out there contracted many other ways - it's the risk you take. So I'm certain your article is correct - I have never claimed sex was unhealthy. But I also think there should be boundaries on sex. Putting these boundaries, such as leaving it til marriage reduces the risk of STD's.

I already answered that one in my previous post/s.

Do you know anything about nomadic society 3000 years ago? Going by what you say here, you know nothing. Getting married young and having children young was not only a cultural norm, but a necessity. Tribal life isn't like life today when people can expect to live well into their 60's/70's or even older, and then retire on an old-age pension. Having children young was the only way for a society to grow. otherwise it would die out.

However, since we're talking about morals and socially acceptable standards, let us look forward 1000 years in the future? How do you think future mankind will look back on us? Do you think culture will have changed and things that we see as morally acceptable and unacceptable will remain the same? It is impossible to judge one society based on your own societal expectations. 1000 years from now, someone will probably be saying that my actions or your actions (society's actions) were ignorant and unelightened.



And when did this turn into a question about respecting beliefs? What can this sentence possibly have to do with whether I choose to have sex before marriage or not? No need for Red Herrings here, MLOR

I guess you have selective reading, MLOR, since I clearly said these things did not apply in the modern world because of all the cultural differences. Selective reading - ah well, you claim the same thing about me and my Faith in the BIble, so I guess we're even now.

All the best,

Burning the midnight oil there PA, you were up very late matey......

As mentioned before it wasn't unheard of for a woman (especially) to be a virgin on her wedding night, even 30, 40 and 50 years ago........That's certainly the case for my mum's generation (she's 68) and I suppose society frowned upon young women being sexually active.......

It was different for men of course but again, if a man got married in his late teens or early twenties, again nothing wrong with him being a virgin......Of course these days it's the opposite......It's no longer expected that a woman remain a virgin until she gets married and it's certainly, the exception rather than the rule nowadays.......

I was a virgin when I met my hubby but not on my wedding night...... Ahhhhh yes, those early days of the 'honeymoon' period......We used to have bedroom sex and kitchen sex and shower sex......Now, after 16 years and 5 kids later, we have 'hallway' sex......When he's coming in the door and I'm walking out and we bump into each other in the hallway, one of us says, "**** off" and the other says, "You **** off".........

No offense but the STD scare tactic isn't really that good of an argument. I have a friend who has never used a condom once and has sex with a ton of different people a yet almost miraculously has not caught an STD. My little brother had sex with a girl who we knew had an STD but didn't catch anything. None of my friends have STDs(we know because a bunch of them got tested after a 'questionable weekend') but yet sleep around with the ****tiest girls this city has to offer. Personally I have had sex nine times with five different partners and used a condom every time and have yet to catch a STD or get anybody pregnant.

I can get into a car crash driving to work, does that mean I shouldn't drive? Or does it mean I should drive safely and wear my seatbelt.

"No risk, no reward."-Transformers

Abstinence doesn't work for the vast majority of people. Every catholic school preaches even public schools use the STD and pregnancy scare tactics yet it doesn't stop anybody from doing what nature intended us to do. Even amongst devout christians abstinence fails. This isn't going to change, the reasons for remaining abstinent in the days of the bible are no longer relevent to today.

Of course I view Gods rule of abstinence as a social rule he made and not a spiritual one so I believe that rule is now void just like many of his other social rules. I don't see how having premarital sex makes you less likely to have a less successful, loving, or committed marriage nor see how it makes you any less of a good person...and thats what I believe is what matters to God anyways, so I don't see how he would enforce that law in todays society.

A very cavalier attitude towards STDs there. Some youth are invincible they think they will live forever and never get hurt. I grew up during the AIDs scare so safe sex was always advised. Though a condom will not mean you never get some diseases out there. Either way there are some diseases that might have no signs such as HPV and when some of those girls come out with cervical cancer later in life they will regret some of their decisions. It is a good thing they have recently developed a vaccine for most of the strains of HPV. People are going to do as they wish an abstinence advice does not work but by all means practice safe sex...and know that no sex is completely safe.

Yes my little brother and my friends are mostly stupid. I have always bin overly paranoid about getting a women and wary of catching a STD but that didn't prevent me from having sex...it just makes me practice safe sex and not go to any brothels. My dads family's genetics is bad to say the least, on average we don't live much past sixty so I don't plan on living forever. Speaking of regret I don't want to be a sixty year old man who wasted his prime years waiting for a wife that never came and past up on all those fun times.

Mr Walker - if what is in the Bible cannot be attributed to God, what can? The point is that who can decide for sure what parts of the Bible are solely representative of the culture and history at the times, and summarily dismissed, and what is applicable for today? There seems to be some confusion amongst those who follow the Bible on this issue.

I admit I have trouble what laws were social laws for the people of that culture and society and which laws are intended to always be followed. Abstinence and homosexuality are the two big ones for me.

I don't know about that, I suppose it is all in the interpretation.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sex_jesu.htm

Still another interpretation is found on the Christian Marriage web site. Pastor Don Milton notes that the word "adultery" means sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is either engaged or married to another man. Milton notes that:

"Every reference to adultery in the entire Bible concerns sexual intercourse between a married or betrothed woman and a man other than the one to whom she is married or betrothed."

If adultery is limited by definition to activity between a man and another man's wife or near wife, then "adultery in ones heart" could also be assumed to refer only to lust directed at another man's wife or betrothed woman. This passage is actually describing a man coveting one of his neighbor's possessions -- a wife. He is violating the Tenth commandment of Exodus 20:17:

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Thus, feelings of lust towards a single women would fall outside the scope of Matthew 5:27-28. This interpretation become much clearer when one realizes that the Greek word "gune" translated here as "woman" can also be translated as "wife." It has been translated as "wife" or "wives" in 92 other passages in the Christian Scriptures. A clearer translation into English might be:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on [another man's] wife to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Finally, the webmaster of StudyToAnswer.net notes that

"...the Greek word translated as "lust" here, epithumeo does not merely mean 'to have a desire.' It is a word which actually indicated a strong, even consuming, desire, most often for something which, for whatever reason, is not lawful for one to possess. This is the way in which the word is used at many points in the New Testament ... it seems quite obvious that the Lord Jesus is describing, per the connotation of the word being used, looking upon a woman with an intense desire. Not a mere glance, not a general sort of attraction that may be normal to any heterosexual man, but an intense desire, with an idea towards POSSESSING the desired object (remember Paul's application of "lust" to the tenth commandment, against covetousness, in Romans 7:7?) What the Lord Jesus is talking about here is looking upon a woman in such a way as to desire to take her for yourself, even if it is not lawful for you to have her, in this specific example because she is another man's wife. Clearly Jesus is attaching the particular "sin" connotation to epithumeo, and applying it to the sort of ogling that a man might do which would lead him to then think about and develop a strong desire for the woman who it would be unlawful for him to pursue. ... From all this, it is apparent that the Lord's exposition in Matthew 5:28 is not talking about normal male heterosexuality. It is not talking about never being attracted to a woman who you might like to marry one day. It is talking about abstaining from a strong and persistent desire to possess or take, even in the temporariness of adultery, a woman who is not your wife, and who in fact is probably the wife of another man. " 4

this has to be my favoriet quote i have ever heard. and well... as a satanist, the lust factor is if you want to. do it. but i wouldnt unless i truely had feelings of deep emotion for the person, if it takes marrage for youok. but i wont even like tease about sex unless i loved someone. i dont know im a weird satanist.

by Robert Herrick

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old time is still a-flying;
And the same flower that smiles today
Tomorrow will be dying.


The glorious lamp of heaven the sun,
The higher he's a-getting,
The sooner will his race be run,
And nearer he's to setting.


That age is best which is the first,
When youth and blood are warmer;
But being spent, the worse, and worst
Times still succeed the former.


Then be not coy, but use your time,
And, while ye may, go marry;
For, having lost but once your prime,
You may forever tarry.

I thought i was pretty clear, but perhaps not. I was pointing out that the social conditions of the time were not attributable to god any more than the social conditions in genghis khans society. But the jews had the rules which they saw as coming from god, and every one of thos erules improved the lot of both societies and individuals within those societies. They are so effective rules that they are still medically and socially relevant today(despite cadetak's assertions to the contrary)

True our societies are robust enough to survive if they are not applied but still our society and especially the weakest most dependant members of society suffer and are less than they could be if the basic intent of those laws was still applied. Superior knowledge and technology has given modern people a sense that their morals and ethics are superior to older societies but the evidence of social life within modern societies(as opposed to the physical benefits of technology) does not bear this out.

Just one statistic on its own graphically illustrates this point (According to current awareness ads on Australian TV, one in four girls is sexually abused in Australia).

This tells a lot about our current society. There are probably few historical societies(where women, though less free, were much better protected by family and social structures) where sexual abuse of young women reached even a fraction of this percentage.

If our ethics and societies are so superior without religious rules, then why are they in such a shambles today, and why are we failing our children so badly?

I concur, I know lots of sexually active folks who do not use condoms who do not have std's either.... As a matter of fact in my life I dont know any .....

I would encourage the use condoms and if one was to get serious about a parnter go to the doctors get tested for std's together before not using them..... but for me I'd be more concerned with the prevention of pregnacy then STD's to be honest...

i on the other hand think its mans rules for what ever reasons at the time, it doesn't make sense, i atribute it to one of mans ignorant ideas rather than anything divine...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-Benjamin Franklin

So equal women's rights is bad ethics, immoral, and a bad rule that is damaging society?

I'm going to have to go through my Bible and look up passages but I believe God also a few rules concerning nonbelievers, homosexuals and foreigners...and more often then not that rule was to kill them if they came into the camp/town. Relevant then, irrelevant now.

Abstinence doesn't work...so the alternative is to what imprison, kill, or exile those who had premarital sex?

Your statistics are saddening to say the least but I don't think we have accurate statistics of biblical times to compare that too. Even if we did the answer isn't to go back on the progress of equal rights.

IMO abstinence as the standard has done more harm to woman then most acknowledge.... its not until as of late that it is exceptable for a woman to celebrate her sexuality without the social stigma of shunning and persecution. and labels.....
a freind of ours who is 21 and has been in a long term relationship decided to take it to an intimate level..... ( she was very christian jehovah witness) i'dd add also she had so little sex education .... ....anyways, she was so moved by the experince positively beaming if i might add she decided to share this beautiful expeirience with her mother who berated and shunned her called her an abomination.....that is the reality of abstinance for a woman ..IMO... yet a boy would of been celebrated...boys will be boys..etc....

Hi Sheri, this isn't just directed at you, but at cadetak and others as well, but just a little research:

It's really common. Around 1 in 8 of us are carrying the genital herpes virus.

The symptoms are not always easy to identify - and some people who have the virus have no symptoms at all (which means they can pass it on without a clue).

Up to 80% of people with genital herpes don't even realise they have it.

If you do have symptoms, in most cases they can be controlled with a simple treatment.

Source for further reading

You can be a carrier and not even be aware of it.

And concerning the UK -

Over the past decade there has been a substantial increase in diagnoses of most Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) in the UK, and reports of two of the most common STDs have shown massive rises. Cases of uncomplicated gonorrhea increased by 46% between 1997 and 2006, while genital chlamydia increased by 166%. Chlamydia has been the most commonly reported sexually transmitted disease since 2001, ov