|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: sex before marriage
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I remember reading somewhere that some famous medieval medical guidebook said that first babies had a variable gestation period, but subsequent babies all took 40 weeks. Indicating (to me, anyway) that people were quite aware that people jumped the gun, and bent over backward to not make a big deal about it.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) The medievals weren't all the old poops they're made out to be.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
In traditional Judaism, having sex essentially did make you married.
I'd imagine that in early times (Exodus, Judges) that was the working definition of man and wife; people who lived together and had sex. And that first intercourse was what marked the beginning of the 'marriage'.
In many peasant societies, bethrothal is license for cohabitation and sex; marriage occurs after the bride becomes pregnant. This is because infertility in a peasant society is a major disaster.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Scripturally, "fornication" when it refers to sexual intercourse was sex between two people who never intend to get married
Do we have contemporary witness from NT times thet the word was used that way? It isn't obviously clear that that's what it means in the NT.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I remember reading somewhere that some famous medieval medical guidebook said that first babies had a variable gestation period, but subsequent babies all took 40 weeks. Indicating (to me, anyway) that people were quite aware that people jumped the gun, and bent over backward to not make a big deal about it.
The medievals weren't all the old poops they're made out to be.
Was that the book that talked about first babies being big too? Bouncing seven pounders at 33 weeks?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Scripturally, "fornication" when it refers to sexual intercourse was sex between two people who never intend to get married
Do we have contemporary witness from NT times thet the word was used that way? It isn't obviously clear that that's what it means in the NT.
The problem is that the meaning of fornication has never been consistent - both in the Bible and in Christian history.
Here is the KJV search for "fornication" http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=fornication&searchtype=all&version1=9&spanbegin=47&spanend=53
What is interesting is how the word is used at the time the KJV was written.
Matthew 5:32
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Matthew 19.9
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Fornication is used here as infidelity is used now. The passage wouldn't make sense if it meant having sex with your betrothed.
And 1 Cor 7 says:
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
which also implies infidelity. It doesn't make much sense if it was 'jumping the gun' with your betrothed.
Otherwise, the word is used in the NT but not defined.
But considering that it was accepted Hebrew practise to have intercourse with your betrothed to "seal the deal", if this practise was now condemned as divorce was, one would think there would be clear verses against it.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
In traditional Judaism, having sex essentially did make you married.
I'd imagine that in early times (Exodus, Judges) that was the working definition of man and wife; people who lived together and had sex. And that first intercourse was what marked the beginning of the 'marriage'.
Ye-ess. But those are all sex plus -- that is, sex plus then living together as if married, or sex with the intent of being married. I was responding to the earlier contention that the two into one language meant you're married to whomever you had sex with.
I did medieval history myself, and am aware that sex plus was one of the ways to be married. And based on genealogy, first babies in my family, several in the early years of the colonies, appeared to have been significantly premature, though they lived long healthy lives, which is something of a miracle, really, given the state of medicine in 1700s. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Was that one of the "Ye-s"'s that were being discussed on the hell thread?
But point taken. Those were "sex plus". On the other hand, it seems that putting
quote:
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
together with quote:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
does lead you in that direction.
Do we have a new terminology; 'Marriage minus' and 'sex plus'?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Do we have contemporary witness from NT times thet the word was used that way? It isn't obviously clear that that's what it means in the NT.
Not least because the NT wasn't written in English!
The Greek porneia, which is the word which tends to be rendered 'fornication', is fairly unclear in its reference - it means something along the lines of 'impurity'.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Also notable that breaking an engagement seems to have required a divorce (cf Joseph / Mary).
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wolfgang
Shipmate
# 10809
|
Posted
Forgive me for not following this thread from the start.
ToujoursDan, you wrote:
quote:
But considering that it was accepted Hebrew practise to have intercourse with your betrothed to "seal the deal", if this practise was now condemned as divorce was, one would think there would be clear verses against it
I understood that there were no sexual relations during a jewish betrothal (which was more binding than a modern engagement).
--------------------
"The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist" - Dostoevksy
Posts: 121 | From: The North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
Kudos to the Dean of Emmanuel College Cambridge who has just admitted, in a letter to the Bishop of Ely "I cannot recall the last time I presided over the marriage of a couple who were not already sleeping together."
Welcome to the real world.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
wow badman.
I think it is fair to say that trying to talk to teens about whether to "wait" for marriage or not is relaly a no go issue. They will most likely look at you as if you have walked off of some strnage planet.
Discussing whether you should even save it for someone you love or a relationship seems more the level....
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
He is in a rather unusual congregational setting. There would obviously be an unusual set of couples asking to get married there. There are plenty of other churches which would see a lot of couples not sleeping together wanting to get married from within the regular congregation, though obviously not couples from outside.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
...There would obviously be an unusual set of couples asking to get married there. There are plenty of other churches which would see a lot of couples not sleeping together wanting to get married from within the regular congregation, though obviously not couples from outside.
That doesn't compare to my experience. Within our parish, and I mean core members, parish council, etc. I can think of one couple where they announced that they were living together and a wedding date, and another who simple have moved to the same address. And pretty much everyone knows that.
So in rural Ontario, living together before marriage is so routine it doesn't bother the church membership at all. And we're talking about a very conservative parish.
I think that particular issue is dead and buried.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
We were talking about Cambridge, England, not the Anglican church in Canada. It certainly is not dead and buried in the Church of England and it's not just evangelical churches where that would still cause a stir.
I think that if anyone on our PCC did that they would find themselves under subtle pressure to resign. They certainly would not get re-elected. I don't think anyone would actually say anything rude to them here. There are quite a lot of churches which are more conservative than we are where rude things would be said. I would say the number of churches like that was growing.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimS
Shipmate
# 10766
|
Posted
Jonathan the Free,
Is that Cambridge, England planet Earth?
With 40% of children being born out of marriage people living together hardly gets noticed in most churches.
--------------------
Jim:Confused of Crewe
Posts: 137 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Om
Shipmate
# 2318
|
Posted
Remember that living together != having sex. Today's society has moved quite a long way from the traditional situation where you live with your parents until you get married. If a couple live separately and you both decide to move towns (for work reasons,say), it makes a lot of sense to rent a big flat together at maybe £600/month rather than two separate flats at £450/month each. Particularly if you don't know anyone in the new town so the natural flatsharer is your other half. You may choose to have separate rooms or whatever, and not have sex, but it's still 'living together'.
There is the question that people judge others based on their perception of what the situation is rather than the facts but to avoid this involves going an awful long way round. I suppose it also depends on what your view of marriage is (in other words, is living together in the non-sexual sense something that should be reserved for marriage too? If so, why?)
Posts: 96 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimS:
Jonathan the Free,
Is that Cambridge, England planet Earth?
With 40% of children being born out of marriage people living together hardly gets noticed in most churches.
I am well aware that most people now live together before getting married. But most English people are not Christians and a large proportion of Christians do not hold to the traditional evangelical views.
However there are still a large number of churches in England, inside the Church of England and outside of it, where the traditional evangelical views are the norm. Those in leadership positions in the church would be expected to conform to it, and there would be a hope that others would too.
Weddings also take place of non-churchgoers in those churches too, and in the majority of cases they are living together first. That is absolutely fine, there is no wish to force anyone outside to pretend, and a wish to assist with providing common grace and help in regularising and supporting relationships.
[Of course, some people do live together without sex too, but that is a slightly different point.]
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheoM:
Remember that living together != having sex. Today's society has moved quite a long way from the traditional situation where you live with your parents until you get married.
That was not the traditional situation in England. Most men, and many women, left their parent's homes before they married. Often into some sort of domestic service or apprenticeship of course, where they lived with their employer's family rather than on theor own.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
quote:
Originally posted by JimS:
Jonathan the Free,
Is that Cambridge, England planet Earth?
With 40% of children being born out of marriage people living together hardly gets noticed in most churches.
I am well aware that most people now live together before getting married. But most English people are not Christians and a large proportion of Christians do not hold to the traditional evangelical views.
However there are still a large number of churches in England, inside the Church of England and outside of it, where the traditional evangelical views are the norm. Those in leadership positions in the church would be expected to conform to it, and there would be a hope that others would too.
It's just that, human nature being what it is, even people who don't think they should have sex before marriage often do, don't they? Especially if they are in love and are on their way to getting married? Even if they're not openly living together?
My great great grandfather was a Calvinistic Methodist deacon. But his first child was born less than 9 months after his marriage. Same went for his father and grandfather. And for his son, his grandson, his great-grandson and, um, sorry if this is too much information, his great great grandson (although none of us have been deacons).
Wouldn't it be great if there was a smiley of someone waking up and smelling coffee? Then I could put it here!
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
Wouldn't it be great if there was a smiley of someone waking up and smelling coffee? Then I could put it here!
And one for "could you be any more patronising if you tried?" This will have to do ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Your argument is that "People really like having sex before marriage so the church ought to change its' moral position on the issue." Surprisingly, for some of us, that argument doesn't hold much water.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
It's just that, human nature being what it is, even people who don't think they should have sex before marriage often do, don't they? Especially if they are in love and are on their way to getting married? Even if they're not openly living together?
That happens of course. People do many things they believe they shouldn't, sometimes occasionally, sometimes as a way of life. It is very difficult to put percentage figures on it in the absence of early pregnancies.
I think it is rather sad that you are mocking those who choose to try and live in the traditional Christian pattern of chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it. Even if you choose not to do that yourself, do you have to mock those who do.
I don't fast on Friday, but I am genuinely impressed with those Orthodoxen or Catholics who do, if they are able to do so out of grace, love and discipline not law. I am still impressed if they only manage it 50 or 51 Fridays not 52. That shows how hard the discipline is. That is not a cause for me to mock them when I don't have the self-discipline to have a set fast at all.
Likewise there are many evangelicals and catholics, including substantial and growing numbers within the Church of England, who do hold to the traditional place of chastity before marriage. Whether you agree with them or not is your choice.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
Wouldn't it be great if there was a smiley of someone waking up and smelling coffee? Then I could put it here!
And one for "could you be any more patronising if you tried?" This will have to do
Your argument is that "People really like having sex before marriage so the church ought to change its' moral position on the issue." Surprisingly, for some of us, that argument doesn't hold much water.
Lep (and JtF)
I think his point is that christians like other people, have routinely ignored this particular element of "christian morality" for untold generations without any attempt by either the state or the church (in any of its manifestations) to make/encourage them to stop doing so.
That's a simple matter of historical fact. Particularly in large parts of England where pregnancy was the usual reason for marriage, even among regular church-goers.
This is not the picture usually given by Christians since the mid to late 1800s, who had/have an understandable interest in proving that the moral standards that became usual in the late victorian period had always been the rule. but it's what really happened.
John
[ 23. February 2006, 22:25: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
So, perhaps, pre-marital abstinence from sex is a matter if self discipline (and prudence?) to be admired, but not a standard to be enforced?
(and as my fiance exclaims, "I don't think I want to know how it's going to be enforced...imagine old lady in a shawl crooning 'and what are you doing in there?!'") ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Jonathan the Free wrote: I think it is rather sad that you are mocking those who choose to try and live in the traditional Christian pattern of chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it. Even if you choose not to do that yourself, do you have to mock those who do.
"Mocked"? Well, Jonathan, perhaps now you can appreciate what's it's been like for people who don't hold your viewpoint to be mocked -- and scorned and loathed and condemned and despised and belittled and disparaged and shunned and reviled and vilified -- by churchgoers for years.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Well, Jonathan, perhaps now you can appreciate what's it's been like for people who don't hold your viewpoint to be mocked -- and scorned and loathed and condemned and despised and belittled and disparaged and shunned and reviled and vilified -- by churchgoers for years.
Ah, so two wrongs DO make a right. I kinda figured.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
Not necessarily. It's just that it's pretty rich to hear churchgoers of a certain stripe whine about being mocked for their viewpoint when they've been the ones dishing out the contempt for decades.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Seems like there's always been plenty of that to go around, from all sides.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
"Always"? In recent years, you may have a point. But I'm not aware of secular humanists or liberal Christians establishing the equivalent of the Magdalene Asylums so they could lock away their daughters who refused to have premarital sex.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Did I say (1) the contempt always takes the same form, or (2) the players have always been the same players? If I implied that I retract it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
I'm not really responsible for what other people did wrong decades before I was born, especially as I wouldn't describe them as having the same churchmanship as I do.
I think there is a difference between mocking and criticising.
Badman and others were implying that we don't exist or worse that we were being deliberately hypocritical. The claim that we don't exist is clearly ridiculous which Badman would be well aware of, if he is in England. (I can see why someone from North America might need to be convinced as I think we have a much bigger charismatic and evangelical Anglican presence here.) I think the claim of hypocrisy is not as completely successful as those with a different theological position would like.
There are thousands of parishes in the Church of England where the priest and people don't share Badman's views, and where there is a fairly high degree of voluntary chastity. Those churches are growing in number and in size of congregation. We might be wrong, we might be over-zealous, or many other things. Dead and buried, we are not.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
Wouldn't it be great if there was a smiley of someone waking up and smelling coffee? Then I could put it here!
And one for "could you be any more patronising if you tried?" This will have to do
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be patronising at all.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
It's just that, human nature being what it is, even people who don't think they should have sex before marriage often do, don't they? Especially if they are in love and are on their way to getting married? Even if they're not openly living together?
I think it is rather sad that you are mocking those who choose to try and live in the traditional Christian pattern of chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it.
I am not mocking them.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
Badman and others were implying that we don't exist or worse that we were being deliberately hypocritical.
I have not argued that and I do not believe it. My point is that it is very unusual indeed in England for people to get married when still virgin, and that goes for churchgoers as well as non churchgoers. That has been my personal experience and I have been active in a number of churches over the years. I respect your experience which is plainly different, and I do not doubt it although I do not recognise it.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Fair enough. I think we understand each other better now.
Time to let the deceased equine rest until the next time.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
Badman and others were implying that we don't exist or worse that we were being deliberately hypocritical. The claim that we don't exist is clearly ridiculous which Badman would be well aware of, if he is in England. (I can see why someone from North America might need to be convinced as I think we have a much bigger charismatic and evangelical Anglican presence here.) I think the claim of hypocrisy is not as completely successful as those with a different theological position would like.
There are thousands of parishes in the Church of England where the priest and people don't share Badman's views, and where there is a fairly high degree of voluntary chastity. Those churches are growing in number and in size of congregation. We might be wrong, we might be over-zealous, or many other things. Dead and buried, we are not.
I'd just like to approach this from the other direction for a second. I've been in the churches you describe, Jonathan, for most of my life. The reality is that most young people are struggling with various forms of sexuality and/or sexual sins. There is no problems with preaching purity in itself. However, it becomes rather self defeating when it is championed as a sign of the 'true' christian when those held up as bastions are actually not quite as pure as might be expected.
Life (and church) would be a whole lot more honest in these contexts if the reality of peoples' brokenness and inadequacy was recognised before laying into them with a moral standard that they have already broken.
As a subpoint, I believe most people do not 'live in sin' due to some malicious sexual disobedience, but due to the realities of living in a society where it is financially almost impossible to leave home and live alone coupled with the high price of a wedding. Church would do well to deal with some of these issues before slamming people, not that slamming people achieves much anyway.
And as a final point, as the CofE has a cultural function in England vis-a-vis state-recognised marriage, a large percentage of those married in church are actually from outside of the congregation. Hence, it is probably safe to say that the majority of anglican weddings do not meet the criteria of 'traditional' marriage that you profess anyway.
I think we all need to take a collective dose of Getting Over Ourselves.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimS
Shipmate
# 10766
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
There are thousands of parishes in the Church of England where the priest and people don't share Badman's views, and where there is a fairly high degree of voluntary chastity. Those churches are growing in number and in size of congregation. We might be wrong, we might be over-zealous, or many other things. Dead and buried, we are not.
This is at least the second time you have made this claim. Is it one of the 80% of statistics that are made up on the spot or do you have real, independent data to support it?
--------------------
Jim:Confused of Crewe
Posts: 137 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
As a subpoint, I believe most people do not 'live in sin' due to some malicious sexual disobedience, but due to the realities of living in a society where it is financially almost impossible to leave home and live alone coupled with the high price of a wedding. Church would do well to deal with some of these issues before slamming people, not that slamming people achieves much anyway.
Exactly. Thank you. I get really frustrated when people are so quick to "so and so are living in sin" when the reality is that so and so are completely broke and they are already doing the best they can.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
As a subpoint, I believe most people do not 'live in sin' due to some malicious sexual disobedience, but due to the realities of living in a society where it is financially almost impossible to leave home and live alone coupled with the high price of a wedding. Church would do well to deal with some of these issues before slamming people, not that slamming people achieves much anyway.
Exactly. Thank you. I get really frustrated when people are so quick to "so and so are living in sin" when the reality is that so and so are completely broke and they are already doing the best they can.
But in reality they could get married pretty cheaply. It is the western ideal of the massive white wedding which is the problem. And the massive wedding celebration isn't even important, the commitment is the important thing.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Following on from what others have said (ive done a complete u-turn on this) - I think that high living prices for living independantly, and age of people getting married etc all make a difference.
As for the suggestion of just getting a cheap wedding done say the weekend before you move in - isnt that actually devaluing marriage? Isnt that reducing it to the level of a bit of paper?
I think marriage is in part recognising a relaitonship that is already there and a confirming a commitment already made in engagment.
As for marriage on the cheap -isnt that devaluing marriage and reducing it to the bit of paper? (do it at the weekend and get it done cheap) just to show yorue married...?!
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
But in reality they could get married pretty cheaply. It is the western ideal of the massive white wedding which is the problem. And the massive wedding celebration isn't even important, the commitment is the important thing.
Only £25 at the registry office IIRC.
But you try telling your friends and relations that you're having a simple wedding.
I'm not saying it is anyone's fault, but the reality is that there is a perception almost everyone holds about what should happen at a decent wedding.
C
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Fine, but don't let people blame the church, then, or say it's a function of christianity.
And, in response to an earlier post, as a christian, I couldn't care less about the CofE's cultural role in England in a discussion about Christian attitudes towards sex before marriage. So far as I can see, by calling it a cultural role you are already admitting that this role has nothing to do with christianity.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I have no problems with sex before marriage in a lot of cases, but the excuse of not being able to afford a big wedding is ridiculous. If that's grounds for people who think sex before marriage is always wrong to look the other way, I think those people's priorities are seriously out of whack. Christians should be able to bear being a little counter-cultural.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
I think ive changed re the "afford a wedding" line. Of course saving for years in order to spend a fortune is silly.
However, if you want to get married in a church, you are likely to need to give at least 6months and often a years notice.
if you want family and friends to be there, they will want notice....
If you have **already made** that commitment, and dedication to get married (ie planing it for a years time) i dont see why you should put off sex in the meantime myself.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
But if you've already "made the commitment," that makes getting married in church redundant, if not meaningless, especially as the legal bit can be done in a registry office/county clerk's office/wherever is appropriate to your locality.
[ 24. February 2006, 18:59: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Well i dont think so! In fact I think the opposite, it sounds like youre reducing it to just a piece of paper!!
I would still want to make a public commitement before friends and family, and have a ceremony recognising that stage. Similar in some senses to believers baptism I guess, its ntot he point of making a commitment, but a stage on the journey...
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Om
Shipmate
# 2318
|
Posted
For me the public commitment is important because it makes it harder to escape from the marriage, and thus the marriage is more secure. IMO sex is all about being vulnerable and so the security of marriage is the best place for it because it gives space and commitment to work through any issues that arise.
Security because when things get tough it's comparatively easy to tell your spouse that it's over, perhaps in a fit of pique. But we seem to have an inbuilt dislike of admitting we're wrong, so to have to go around to all your friends and family who have promised to support you and then tell them that you screwed up requires a big dose of humility. It's not possible to blazon it out and pretend that you were utterly blameless in the situation. And maybe being faced with that humility makes it easier to admit to your spouse that you screwed up and try to work it out.
Posts: 96 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
A couple in our church had been living together when they came to us, then had their baby baptised, and decided they wanted to get married. They hadn't 2 pennies to rub together, and all their family lived abroad. So they didn't tell anyone except the vicar and one or two friends. They turned up to a normal service in jeans and t-shirts, and in the middle of the service, they exchanged vows. (They had gone to a register office the day before for the legal bit.) They made a cake which they brought with them, scattered with rose petals. Someone from the church took some photos.
It was a beautiful, memorable celebration, and cost them virtually nothing.
Most other weddings in our church have been community do's - church members have made the dress, made the cake, made the food, taken the photos etc for nothing, as wedding presents. It needn't be expensive.
I don't believe sex before marriage is the Biggest Baddest Sin or anything, but the cost of a wedding needn't really be the reason for not getting married.
And if you really don't want to live together first, there are ways round it. I stayed with friends for a few weeks before we got married, and before that I was in a shared house and he was in another. If the principle is really that important to you, you'll find a way. (I know the principle isn't important to others, and I'm not knocking them at all.)
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheoM:
For me the public commitment is important because it makes it harder to escape from the marriage, and thus the marriage is more secure.
This doesn't bear any resemblance to reality as I've witnessed it. The public commitment still allows people to divorce at will, and they do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
