Why Fornication is Morally Wrong

[Phat8594]

Well, girls/women with previous partners has never been issue for me personally. Its rather unrealistic anyway.

Its sad you think it unrealistic. There are more out there than you think. My wife (who is drop dead gorgeous I might add..so she had a lot..and I mean a lot of guys hitting on her) never even kissed a guy until me.

God is in the business of doing the impossible. So if that the case, why do you worry about the improbable?

[Jin-Roh]

God is in the business of doing the impossible. So if that the case, why do you worry about the improbable?

I am more concerned about how I would treat someone because of their sexual history than finding a 'pure' person. In case I haven't been clear, I do not place any value on virginity.

[hedrick]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...444.x/abstract

There is a correlation between a woman's number of partners and a marriage's failure rate..

Some things from the study:

* If someone had sex only with their eventual husband, there is no increase in problems. The issue was with sex, not cohabitation, by the way.
* They only considered at least one other partner, not the actual number. It is certainly possible that the actual underlying issue is the number of people you have sex with, but this study can't tell the difference between that and a problem caused just by having sex with other than your eventual husband, independent of how many partners are involved.

I echo other comments about correlation not meaning causation. Since there are other variables that are also correlated, it's not at all clear which ones are causal and which are just correlated with ones that are causal. The studies I know of aren't designed in a way to differentiate.

[Darth Executor]

Some things from the study:

* If someone had sex only with their eventual husband, there is no increase in problems. The issue was with sex, not cohabitation, by the way.

There is a slight difference in the heritage study. Though it's small enough that the other one might have said there's no increase in problems.

* They only considered at least one other partner, not the actual number. It is certainly possible that the actual underlying issue is the number of people you have sex with, but this study can't tell the difference between that and a problem caused just by having sex with other than your eventual husband, independent of how many partners are involved.

The heritage study takes the number of partners into account.

[Darth Executor]

The Bible doesn't deal with premarital intercourse very much. And for that there's a reason. Kids typically got married shortly after sex became an issue. Paul's advice that if you were having problems you should get married was a pretty straightforward answer. When you got married early, extra-marital intercourse would primarily be prostitution or adultery, both of which there are good reasons to avoid. And in a society with no birth control, where a woman who wasn't a virgin would find it nearly impossible to get a decent husband, and where children born out of wedlock were in trouble, extra-marital intercourse became so likely to produce damage that no Christian should risk it. So in his culture I would think saying no sex outside of marriage would have made sense. Of course he didn't quite say that, but it's likely that he believed it and that the people he taught understood him that way.

What was stopping God from just ordering people to ignore virginity? Nevermind that even today a lot of children born out of wedlock are in trouble. Some parents can cut it, but for a lot taking care of a child on their own is too much.

Today there's something like a 10 year gap.

Maybe that's the actual problem?

But I'm less clear that this ideal prohibits unmarried people from sex under any circumstance.

I agree here. I'd imagine in "have sex with her or I'll blow this kid's head off" type scenarios it would be excusable. I'm not sure "I can't help myself" really counts as a scenario where exceptions are acceptable.

My suspicion is that when you combine church teachings with what parents actually say (which is normally "I wish you wouldn't, but if you do, please be careful"), what kids understand is that Christians should wait until late teens, and have intercourse as few times as possible in as stable relationships as possible. It might be best to say it that way.

It might be best if people placed a premium on self-control and educated their kids accordingly instead of changing the rules on our own.

[Phat8594]

I am more concerned about how I would treat someone because of their sexual history than finding a 'pure' person

Well I think we can all agree that you shouldn't treat someone with a history as someone less human, etc. In fact, when looking for someone, I would agree that its more important where the person is now, than where they have been. In other words, somone's present health of their relationship with Christ is more important than their previous sexual choices.

I do not place any value on virginity.

However, I am still surprised that you don't place any value on virginity...After all there is recent evidence of how premarital sex (not just intercourse) affects brain chemistry. These chemical changes in the brain, are not without consequence, as they in fact can change the way the brain is wired. It clearly has effects on the brain to which we are still finding out. For example, is it surprising that teens who participate in sexual relationships are considerably more likely to suffer depression?

[Jin-Roh]

Well I think we can all agree that you shouldn't treat someone with a history as someone less human, etc. In fact, when looking for someone, I would agree that its more important where the person is now, than where they have been. In other words, somone's present health of their relationship with Christ is more important than their previous sexual choices.

I am glad that we agree on this.

However, I am still surprised that you don't place any value on virginity...After all there is recent evidence of how premarital sex (not just intercourse) affects brain chemistry. These chemical changes in the brain, are not without consequence, as they in fact can change the way the brain is wired. It clearly has effects on the brain to which we are still finding out. For example, is it surprising that teens who participate in sexual relationships are considerably more likely to suffer depression?

Depression is bad. Sex does effect the brain. But doesn't make virginity a value. After all, it is not as if those effects on the brain disappear if someone has sex after getting married, right? There can be dozens of factors that would cause depression. Sex can be factor, or it can be reaction. Alternately, those who "lose" their virginity very late in life can have equally hard time bonding sexually and emotionally. Rates of conditions like anaorgasmia in women correlate with late first sexual experience. Seems that there are risks to both sides of the coin.

And part of the reason why I place no value on virginity is that it focuses on the wrong thing. Even if towed the evangelical party line on sex here, I would still argue that the purpose is to pursue good sex, as opposed to placing value on "not sex," which is all virginity is.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Can anyone here explain why God defined sex and marriage in such a way that fornication would be morally wrong? Is there another reason why fornication is immoral besides the fact that God says that it is immoral? I recently read about some abstinence-only sex education programs in the news and this is what prompted me to think of these questions.

Well, if you are looking for arguments against fornication that will persuade carnal non-believers, you will be laughed at by them...

Perhaps the best reasons will be found in the outcomes of carnal lives... It would make a good docu-drama TV series, like they do with drug abuse...

Simple interviews with elderly carnal folks can pretty much show the outcomes...

There is the story of George Bernard Shaw, a lifelong carnal [promiscuous] homosexual who had a lifelong partner as well - The two of them would join together in conquests of attractive young men, opening their minds [and other things] to their carnality - And at the end of his life, he was on his deathbed, fully mentally attired, and he said to his partner: "Tell me, my old friend - All those young men we have enjoyed across a lifetime together...??" And his partner said: "Yes, I remember well..." And GBS then asked: "Tell me then - How many of them did we enquire of, or even regard, their lives, the condition of their souls?" And his partner said: "Not even one..." And George, on his deathbed, then said to his life long partner: "Then bring to me a Priest, for I have much to confess, and little time..." And this his partner did...

I hope, but have not heard, that Kinsey did as well as GBS...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Its sad you think it unrealistic. There are more out there than you think. My wife (who is drop dead gorgeous I might add..so she had a lot..and I mean a lot of guys hitting on her) never even kissed a guy until me.

God is in the business of doing the impossible. So if that the case, why do you worry about the improbable?

It is sad indeed - The VALUE of virginity, especially when BOTH partners are virgins, cannot be overstated for marriage...

I have a long and sordid and carnal history, but I can tell you, I still remember the feelings I had in my first encounter over 50 years ago... Never repeated... So that this shared experience can be a cornerstone in the undefiled marriage bed... And thereby consecrate it for both... To say that virginity is a non-factor, which btw it is for me, given my history, is simply to confess one's own non-virginity...

We recently had a couple get married in our church who were in their late 20s, both pious and Orthodox Christians, and at the end of the ceremony, they kissed each other on the lips - And we only later found out that this was the first romantic kiss that either of them had experienced in their lives... A blessing to see, and I cannot imagine the blessing to have - They are now on their second child...

I have another friend age 29 who wishes to marry, who is a virgin, and wants to marry a virgin - Also Orthodox Christian...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I recently read about some abstinence-only sex education programs in the news and this is what prompted me to think of these questions.

I think the time has come for parents of children in our public schools to start calling things what they are... At least in the matter of sex-education for our children... What is now coming about is the SEXUALIZATION of children in public schools... In sexual predator terms, this is called GROOMING...

There will always be SOME children who sexualize early, and these need to learn self control, not acting out, which is what the sex-ed classes teach by exposure, if not by message... We need to STOP the GROOMING of children in public schools FOR those who would USE our children for their ADULT sexual gratification...

This is a central reason why such a large portion of Orthodox Parents home school their children...

There are others as well...

Arsenios

[Phat8594]

After all, it is not as if those effects on the brain disappear if someone has sex after getting married, right?

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Sex affects chemicals in the brain by different amounts and greater degree than other behaviors. With that being said, when a person sleeps with someone outside of marriage their brain is affected in a permanent way. As a person is more promiscuous the more the brain is changed. In fact, the brain, in a way rewires itself in a way that makes bonding with a partner much harder. Brain chemicals, like hormones affect a person in crazy ways which can differ by a huge degree by the amount of chemical release. This is why hugging someone is a far cry from having sex with someone. The chemical, although the same, affects the brain much differently because of the amount of chemical actually released. As these effects have a permanance to them, the effects of abstainance or promiscuity do not disappear when someone has sex after getting married.

Even if towed the evangelical party line on sex here, I would still argue that the purpose is to pursue good sex, as opposed to placing value on "not sex," which is all virginity is.

Well, I'd argue that the purpose is not to pursue good sex, but to pursue righteousness and holy living. Virginity (outside of marriage) is not the end goal, but it is a means in which to honor God.

So really, virginity is a lot more than just "not sex", but rather a means in which to worship and honor God.

So in that way, I place a value on virginity. (meaning one who actively pursues virginity (and has pursued virginity) as a means to honor God.

[Jin-Roh]

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Sex affects chemicals in the brain by different amounts and greater degree than other behaviors. With that being said, when a person sleeps with someone outside of marriage their brain is affected in a permanent way. As a person is more promiscuous the more the brain is changed. In fact, the brain, in a way rewires itself in a way that makes bonding with a partner much harder. Brain chemicals, like hormones affect a person in crazy ways which can differ by a huge degree by the amount of chemical release. This is why hugging someone is a far cry from having sex with someone. The chemical, although the same, affects the brain much differently because of the amount of chemical actually released. As these effects have a permanance to them, the effects of abstainance or promiscuity do not disappear when someone has sex after getting married.

And prolonged abstinence has its downfalls too, as I listed above. Like I said, it seems that there are risks and consequences either way.

Well, I'd argue that the purpose is not to pursue good sex, but to pursue righteousness and holy living. Virginity (outside of marriage) is not the end goal, but it is a means in which to honor God.

So really, virginity is a lot more than just "not sex", but rather a means in which to worship and honor God.

So in that way, I place a value on virginity. (meaning one who actively pursues virginity (and has pursued virginity) as a means to honor God.

I can't help but think that we place a much higher premium on the intrinsic merit of virginity than God does. Why was virginity so important in the OT? Trading land and making alliances. It was just as important as exchanging dowries, arranging marriages, and making sure you widowed sister-in-law has many sons, but I doubt any contemporary Christian will harp on those very strongly. Besides, even if you can hold "not sex honors God" and "God created sex and its good" without a mental contradiction, it is still messy in practice. How can a person pursue two opposite goals at the same time?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

And prolonged abstinence has its downfalls too, as I listed above. Like I said, it seems that there are risks and consequences either way.

The Bible tells us it is not for everyone - And for those for whom it is not, there is marriage... Those are the two options... We are not, in Christ, given a third...

I can't help but think that we place a much higher premium on the intrinsic merit of virginity than God does.

Sounds like you have active hormones!

Why was virginity so important in the OT? Trading land and making alliances. It was just as important as exchanging dowries, arranging marriages, and making sure you widowed sister-in-law has many sons, but I doubt any contemporary Christian will harp on those very strongly.

You are arguing in the wrong direction... The fact that it had these consequences were God's BLESSINGS being placed on its observance... These were not WHY it was done - God instructed purity of heart, and gave the Law to Moses, and when thousands of Jews fell into fornication in the wilderness, they were DENIED the Promised Land... THAT is how important it is...

Besides, even if you can hold "not sex honors God" and "God created sex and its good" without a mental contradiction, it is still messy in practice. How can a person pursue two opposite goals at the same time?

Minimal indulgence...

Arsenios

[Phat8594]

And prolonged abstinence has its downfalls too, as I listed above.

I think I missed that...what are the downfalls again?

I can't help but think that we place a much higher premium on the intrinsic merit of virginity than God does.

And I tend to think that people tend to put a much lower premium on holy living that God does.

Why was virginity so important in the OT? Trading land and making alliances. It was just as important as exchanging dowries, arranging marriages, and making sure you widowed sister-in-law has many sons, but I doubt any contemporary Christian will harp on those very strongly.

Sexual purity is not only talked about in the OT. Furthermore, we can try to come up with "reasons" why God wants something all day to rationalize our sin. But at the end of the day, God said do it...so you better do it. If you love God, you will obey Him.

Besides, even if you can hold "not sex honors God" and "God created sex and its good" without a mental contradiction, it is still messy in practice. How can a person pursue two opposite goals at the same time?

They aren't two opposite goals. To say as much, IMO, is incredibly intellectually dishonest, or at a minimum quite naive. Virginity honors God, but so does marital union. Here is the point, God created sex, and it is good...but only within proper context (marital union).

As with pretty much anything in the world, there is the proper use of God's creation, and the perverted use of God's creation. Sex outside of marriage is a perversion of God's intended purpose for sex, while sex within marriage is enjoying God's blessings within their intended purpose.

it is still messy in practice

Actually, its the sex outside of marriage that is messy in practice (expectations, jealousy, selfishness). Its beautifully simple within the context of marriage (no expectations, generosity, selflessness).

[Jin-Roh]

I think I missed that...what are the downfalls again?

One of my cousins suffered an early divorce in his early 20s. One of the problems is that him and his wife could not connect sexually. This was because she suffered from anaorgasmia and other issues brought on by fear of sex and prolonged virginity. Now of course, a proper sexual training of Christian young people is to remind them that "sex is good" and so forth. Such a shame, though, that fear of sex is what it so often produces.

I'm pretty sure you don't hear that kind of story from the pulpit too often, but it happens.

And I tend to think that people tend to put a much lower premium on holy living that God does.

Have you ever been so holy that it caused you to sin yet?

Sexual purity is not only talked about in the OT. Furthermore, we can try to come up with "reasons" why God wants something all day to rationalize our sin.

Its not a rationalization if its from good hermeneutics, and understanding the "reasons" at a particular place, time, and culture, is part of good hermeneutics.

But at the end of the day, God said do it...so you better do it. If you love God, you will obey Him.

Believe it or not, not everyone is bothered by rhetoric like this as you might to think. This especially true when many have found that a lot of God allegedly commanded turned out about be a mixture of 19th-century Victorian snobbery, enshrinement of the middle-class family, thinly veiled sexism, and white-washed hypocrisy. Believe it or not, I've heard/read quite a bit of what evangelicalism has to say about sex, dating, marriage and so forth. I've come to believe that many ministers and parachurches are Neitzche's morality-making strong men, yet they strangely do not realize it.

They aren't two opposite goals. To say as much, IMO, is incredibly intellectually dishonest, or at a minimum quite naive. Virginity honors God, but so does marital union. Here is the point, God created sex, and it is good...but only within proper context (marital union).

Yes, and by that qualifier "only within the proper context" is how you you avoid the contradiction. It is how you are able to say "not sex" and "sex" are good.

As with pretty much anything in the world, there is the proper use of God's creation, and the perverted use of God's creation. Sex outside of marriage is a perversion of God's intended purpose for sex, while sex within marriage is enjoying God's blessings within their intended purpose.

I do not think that marriage itself makes the sexual union good. (Ever seen a bad marriage?) I do not think that sexual activity outside of marriage is a perversion, because I have seen enough happy unions that started off with pre-marital sex. I do not have the stomach to condemn people like that anymore. that would be intellectually dishonest and naive on my part. Besides, if someone sins sexually, they don't need you, me, or anybody else to tell them. They're usually pretty good at figuring that out on their own.

Actually, its the sex outside of marriage that is messy in practice (expectations, jealousy, selfishness). Its beautifully simple within the context of marriage (no expectations, generosity, selflessness).

I would never question the manifest perfection of anyone's marriage. I am certain that there are never any problems because the state of being married removes our sin nature, specially selfishness and jealously, instantly.