POLL: Premarital Sex

Remove all ads!

In early Judaism, marriage was about the exchange of property. (At this stage of history, women were considered property.) I may offend a few people by pointing this out, but, if we use the bible to date our species we are only about 10,000 years old. As anyone with an elementary school education knows, mankind has been around a lot longer than that, and I'm pretty sure that we were having sex or we wouldn't, uh, be here now. Since at the earliest stages of Judaism (let alone the one or two hundred thousand years preceding it), marriage was about the exchange of property, not about becoming closer to God, it logically follows that marriage was not originally a religious institution.

[ March 16, 2006, 01:17: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

The point is missed that Christianity, and from what I've heard, Judaism and Islam trace their roots back through Abraham, all the way back to Adam and Eve. They were married by God, which means it is a religious ordinance, which predates law and society. From such perspective, Religion then claims marriage as their, usurped by Law. Those of you who don't believe fail to acknowledge that claim on the part of the religious.

Further, Aldeth, I must rebutt your claim that Religion has made sex bad or dirty. On the contrary, my faith teaches that Sex is sacred, and premarital sex, adultery, incest, rape, homosexuality and beastiality all desecrate this holy act. This is why Sexual sin is held to be so greivous.

And Rally, Chev has as much right to have a problem with common law relationships as aetheists have to have a problem with our religious beliefs. We don't have the right to tell them to shut up, so those who do not wish to live our standards have no right to demand that we not object.

 

This thread seems to have degenerated into an argument over the defenition of "marriage"...

The topic is pre-marital sex. Now, when I think of pre-maritial sex, I think of sex outside of a relationship that is of the same status and quality as a relationship that is considered, legally, or religiously, married. That is, two people who live together for 30 years and have 4 kids would be considered married, in my opinion. Sure, mabye there was no ceremony, no vows performed in front of a religious figure, but relationships don't last for 30 years (or so) without the two people involved saying, at some point: "I love you, and I want to be with you always" or something like that.

Therefore I think that we should consider a relationship where two people share feelings of love and permenancy that are equal to the respective feelings of married couples as a "married" relationship. To consider it otherwise is to argue that a piece of paper or a ceremony in front of witnesses means more than the personal vows one makes to one's significant other.

Now, all this said, I think that sex should be reserved for relationships that have the potential to become "married" relationships. That is, if the two people having sex want their relationship to last, and see their relationship forming into one that would last them the rest of their lives, they should go ahead and have sex. Sex would strengthen such a relationship, actually helping it on its path to lasting the rest of their lives. Now this relationship may fail eventually, but that does not cheapen the sex or make it wrong. All the sex did was foster the feeling of love between the two people, and the beauty of that love cannot be changed by whether or not the relationship lasts in the end.

 

@Gnarfflinger: These religions also said that the earth is only 10,000 years old. We all know it isn't.....so someone is just going to have to face up to the fact that the bible is missing a couple hundred thousand years of history or acknowledge that some of the stories in the old testament were just stories. They are going to have to reconcile this with the fact that there was life on earth for billions of years before the existance of man, which doesn't exactly corroborate Genesis.

 

Drew: Thanks for dragging this off topic to beat us Christians with a dead horse again. The term I've heard was creative periods, so the creation was not specifically days, but six specific periods where the various components were organized. There was a 7th "day" where God rested (but Adam and Eve had no kids at this point). Further, there was time that it took Adam and Eve to transgress, and be confronted by God. That's physical time that's on the earth. I have yet to find written records that would predate the Bible's account or even the Great Flood...

 

We have found bones, though. Lots and lots of bones. And we have found no human bones from the period of history in which dinosaurs roamed the earth.

In truth, I'm not trying to attack Christianity. I'm attacking the assertion that things like marriage have always been religious in nature because (1) it wasn't. Check the old testament rulings on marriage. It was about the exchange of "property" and (2) the existance of humans predates the recorded history of the bible by a couple hundred thousand years. Also, (3) the bible does not record the history of all people.....just one group of them.

 

And until about 6000 years ago, Adam and Eve were still in the Garden of Eden, so there would be no humans out where the dinosaurs were. Further, I don't believe that Science has all the details of Creation right, and they won't have them right for another 1000 years or so...

 

Sorry. But, as you can see, my point did ultimately pertain to the subject at hand. Namely, that marriage predates formal religion.......or at least that it cannot be proven that it doesn't, which is good enough for me.

 

So when the Bible says "Day" it really means "millions of years"... How are we supposed to trust anything else that is written in this book?

And on predating the flood? Large debates still going on about if the flood ever happened. Not to mention how the entire animal population on the planet could have been reformed from one of each gender. Inbreeding effects animials as much as humans.

 

Sorry to stay of topic, but "marriage" as a concept has been recorded in China for the last 2400 years, predating contact with the Western world by a few hundred years and therefore difficult to equate to Christianity (for obvious time-line reasons) or Judaism.
"Marriage" (polygamy, but that is also practiced in the bible)) was also recorded in Egypt back to aroung 1750 BCE, which, while it probably doesn't pre-date Judaism, I think you'd have a nigh on impossible task to convince anyone that it had had such a major influence on the Egyption way of life.

You may be able to argue that marriage is still religious orientated in these examples, but not the Jewish/Christian/Islamic god.

Actually, if you do a quick search on the internat, you'll also find desription of "marriage" ceremonies for the Inca's and Aztecs. Again, not the Judaic/Christian God.

 

@Ilmater's Suffering - I agree that we have a lot of hardwiring in our behavior. I have no problem with you comparing humans of 10,000 years ago with the people of today, because for all practical purposes, they are genetically identical to us. I agree that using primitive societies of today is a better indicator of early human societies than looking at other primates. It would be helpful if there were other hominids still around, but unfortunately, we're a family of one.

Gnarff, I find this statement by you particularly startling. Not the statement itself, but that it's you who are saying it. You are leaving the possibility that science, at some future point, will have all the details of Creation correct. And I'm not even sure I'm confident about that. I have no reason to believe that 1000 years from now, we'll be a lot more technologically advanced than we are now, but I don't know if Science will ever be able to say that they have all the answers.

I think the problem I have was lumping pre-marital sex into the other things listed that are considered sexual sins. Granted, part of this is because it's the only one you listed that I've done. It doesn't seem to me that pre-marital sex should be lumped in with things like beastiality, adultery, incest, rape, etc. I would also exclude homosexuality from that list. I think the difference comes from the fact that you can give reasons for all those other acts why they are considered wrong beyond a religious tenet. Obviously, if you're religious, a religious tenet is just as important (if not more so) than a non-religious reason, but that's why you'll see me agree with some aspects and not with others.

 

@Ilmater:

Where do you get this? We don't know this. Psychologists are still avidly debating nature (our behavior is determined by genetics and WHAT we are) versus nurture (our behavior is determined by our upbringing and WHO we are). As far as biology goes, the only thing we know is that man has hardwired instincts to feed, protect, shelter, and reproduce, and that we have a hardwired fear of falling and loud noises, which many people negate at early ages.

We really don't know how human group interaction developed, either. There is evidence of cerimonial burial of the dead (afterlife anyone?) from before anatomically modern humans came on the scene. After that, all we know is the tools used, the food eaten, cave paintings, and a vague guess at burial practices. We really don't know what early man was like, nor how quickly or severely things changed.

@Drew:
The exchange of property was part of the formalization, like dowry, and the women were treated much better than property. In early Judaism a woman who felt her husband had seriously wronged her could return to her family's house, or the temple, without his knowledge, and he would have to settle the dispute through intermediaries, such as family or the priests.

@Drew, Gnarff, and Abomination:
Ok, I'll say this one more time, and if anyone asks again, or forgets again, I'm going to beat you with a stick, through your monitor! Genesis chapter one was NEVER intended to reflect a chronological timeline. It's categorical, not chronological. It's like God said, "A.) I made the Earth. B.) I made the seas. C.) I made the land." etc. It isn't even meant to reflect the chronological order that they occured in, it just happens to. The "days" are just organisational pieces. This right here, along with a number of other points, makes any dating of the Earth or humanity through the Bible impossible and anyone who has tried didn't know what they were doing. Any more questions?

@Carcoth:
First off, you can trace all human habitation from the middle east-north africa, and if religion predates modern humans, as it may from my posts above, there's no reason to believe pair-bonding doesn't. Secondly, 2400 years ago doesn't predate any ocntact between the east and west, just any modern contact. There are records of gifts being brought to King Solomon that could only have originated in the orient. This doesn't mean direct contact, but it does mean contact.

 

@NOG: considering that women are still treated like property to this day in most of the world, I'd have to point out that you are, uh, wrong about the treatment of women. Much of the old testament is very misogynistic. Read leviticus chapter 12. A female child is unclean for twice as long as a male child and a woman must atone with a sin offering and is considered unclean for 33 days after the birth of a male and 66 days after the birth of a female. Childbirth was apparently a sin.
We also learn in Leviticus that it is bad for a man to have sex with his mother because it disgraces his father. There's another great one about what happens if a man has sex with a woman outside of marriage.......he must pay the woman's father the bride price. No atonement is required other than this.
Then you have the story of Soddom and Gomorrah.....where the pius man offers his daughters to the village in order to save his male guests. This subhuman treatment of his own daughters in order to save his male guests from being sodomized was held up as an example of just and pius behavior. So, know, women obviously were not treated respectfully in early Judaism. Unless you call that respect.

[ March 16, 2006, 19:45: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

@Drew: That supposed "misogyny" you perceive in the Bible isn't due to any sort of inherent prefernce for external organs over internal ones, it's all about blood. Think about it - to be kosher, meat has to be purged of blood following the ritual slaughter. Women were expected to go into the mikveh for a ritual cleansing following completion of their monthly menses. Given the level of understanding about the human reproductive system at the time, I don't think it's a far stretch that a woman - who's considered unclean following childbirth anyway - woudl be unclean longer following the birth of a girl.

Jewish women in the Biblical era were NOT considered property. Actually, they could hold property, and had full rights under the law - as well as legal protection of those rights. Women could and did becomes leaders of the people - read the book of Judges to learn about Deborah. There are places in today's world where women still don't have as many rights as did Jewish women of the Biblical days.

 

Deuteronomy, Chapter 12, verse 10: When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God delivers them into your hand, so that you may take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as a wife, you may take her home to your house.

verse 14: However, if later on, you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

Uh, it looks like they are referring, here, to the fact that it is OK to force a woman to marry against her will. Especially since verse 14 is very clear about the fact the she was forced to marry you, which also means she could have been forced to have sex. She had no choice in the matter. She was property. This isn't mysoginistic? And it doesn't seem strange to you that a woman is considered unclean for twice as long after having a girl then she is after having a boy?

[ March 16, 2006, 20:13: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

You're taking that grossly out of context. There was almost always, in those days, a huge difference between the victors in a war and the spoils thereof. Find something about how women who were full-fledge members of the community were treated, and then we can talk.

Besides, which would you rather be, married or enslaved? And you can't judge the behaviors described therein by today's standards, either, you have to look at in in perspective to how the rest of the world AT THE TIME treated captives and women and slaves and the like. Seen in that light, Jewish standards were very progressive.

 

@Drew:
Well, that's talking about POWs, so it's not exactly the same (though more despicable IMHO), but it does raise another question. Exactly how "holy" is marriage if you're allowed to just spontaneously marry some girl because you want to have sex with her, and then let her go afterwards when you feel like it? For that matter, if that option is available, there's really no such thing as premarital sex since you can 'marry' anyone you want to have sex with and dissolve it once you're done. But I'm sure someone will clear up what I'm missing here.

 

OK. here's one about rape:

Deuteronomy 22:23

If, within the city, a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. Thus, shall you purge the evil from your midst.

If, however, it is in the open fields that a man comes upon such a betrothed maiden, siezes her and has relations with her, the man alone shall die. You shal do nothing to the maiden, since she is not guilty of a capital offense. This case is like that of a man who rises up against his neighbor and murders him; it was in the open fields that he came upon her, and though the betrothed maiden may have cried out for help, there was no one to come to her aid.

If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered, the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl's father fifty silver sheckles and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover he may not divorce her as long as he lives.

I especially love the part out of stoning the girl for being raped without crying out for help. (Even though she probably did. Studies have proven that, in large areas, people don't respond to cries for help. They are more likely to respond when they are the only other person present.)

 

@Drew:
Your comparing ancient Jerusalem to modern day New York? The Jews were surrounded by enemies and had, usually, only themselves and God to rely on, they were somewhat closer to each other than modern New Yorkers, no offense.