about all this God hates premarital sex (and i still haven't come across a reason why that makes me get all perky about it): ok.
apparently there are quite a few scriptures going on about how frolicking is bad. why it's bad, we don't know, but it is. we're just supposed to take it as is. it's bad. put your leg back down, button up. it's bad.
but it's pissing me off because it strikes me as awfully arbitrary. awfully. almost like that tree of life thing.
so help me out here, people. all those really smart theology students out there. lay it on me. really. why can't we frolic? (and the less patronizing, the better, please.)
cuz if i'm going to have to change here, then i guess i better start trotting out a prayer asking for a husband just so i can have an orgasm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
You know, I think Christians would be hard-pressed to find a place in the Bible where it actually says that premarital sex is wrong. I think you could argue for being faithful to your spouse or for not having sex with one person and then marrying another. But there's no "thou shalt not have sex with your fiance before you get married." And once you throw Old Testament polygamy into the mix (and God's command to take virgins from conquered war enemies to use as sex slaves), it gets all the more dicey.
It has more to do with the concept of faithfulness. There's all that stuff in I Cor 6 and so on, but you can also see that sex = good in the Song of Solomon. Mostly the faithfulness stuff and intimacy issues -- having to do with the way that emotions and love and lust become entangled. Hasidic Jews teach their young people that good sex is holy sex. Our mores have more to do with Queen Victoria than with the Bible.
If we think about the church being the bride of Christ (Revelation 19:5 and on is good for that reference), you can assume that Christ and the church will become intimate -- now *there's* a sermon that will never be preached!
But if this is a model for marriage, then the argument from "as you do to the lesser, you do to the greater" that Paul likes to use becomes "as you are faithful to your spouse (or significant other), you are faithful to Christ." This is the most significant argument that is used against adultery -- not necessarily pre-marital sex.
Likewise, promiscuity in one area can appear in others. Like addictive behaviors.
So, it's the "dance with the one who brung ya'" thing -- to show that you can be faithful and to honor that intimacy. If you are in a relationship, *be* in that relationship. Don't sleep with other people. Talk to a good priest/pastor (read generous, loving and inclusive) and consider what the nature of sin really is -- is it a list of behaviors to avoid or is it a behavior that will seperate you from communion with your God?
Long winded -- blessings.
yay! answers!
okay - then if the average christian would be hard pressed to find this injunction against premarital sex (and i do understand why we shouldn't be floozies) then how now brown cow?
the idea that our sexual lives should be conducted in bonds that are respectful, intimate and faithful is a good one, i think.
and one that sounds very different from - no sex before marriage, period. why one message and not the other?
hm. behaviors to avoid vs. behaviors that break communion with God.
my old background would say that there's no difference between those two things at all. you avoid listening to secular music because listening to secular music separates you from communion with God. and so on. but i know listening to The Hives doesn't separate me from God.
do i think that being sexually active before marriage separates me from God? not really. in the past, i know i've probably behaved sexually in ways that forced me to a point of repentance. for me, this is an important distinction.
One big factor in your decision has to be how closely you believe the Bible to be directly descended from God. I grew up in a denomination that saw every comma as being sacred. I've since grown away from that interpretation, but often fall back to it when I haven't examined things fully. Things have just been lost in translation too many times for me to accept it as perfect.
You also have to deal with the cultural context in which scriptures were written. The Bible simply doesn't provide that. You have to independently study Hebrew culture and understand how it changed over time.
Having said that, I'll get to this:
In Biblical times, a girl was the property of her father (or other male relative) until he betrothed her. After that, she belonged to her husband.
Betrothal took place as soon as menses began. The idea that a girl would have sex before that time simply doesn't occur to the authors of scripture and you won't find any reference to it. Boys were not betrothed until after they were declared masters of their trade, which generally took at least seven years of apprenticeship past their bar mitzvah - so they were at least 20.
There is, of course, the case of the minority who could have developed enough to have a woman's body without actually having had her period.
Now, to get to the point.
In Exodus 22: 16-7 "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."
So, if a man has sex with a non-virginal woman who is not betrothed (a widow or one who has been defiled, for example), he must marry her. If her father refuses to give her willingly, she must be bought and given. (Not exactly big with women's libbers)
Leviticus deals with the priests. 21: 13-4 states, "And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife."
Only a Jewish virgin is an appropriate wife for a Rabbi.
Deuteronomy 22, beginning in verse 13, deals extensively with the topic.
A man who finds his wife is not a virgin may charge her before the village. If proof of her virginity is provided, he is fined. If there is no proof, then she is stoned.
A man who has sex with a married woman is cause for both to be stoned.
If a man rapes a betrothed girl in a field, he is stoned but she is not (she then becomes defiled, as noted above). If he rapes her in town, both are stoned.
If a man is caught having sex with a virgin who is not betrothed, then he will pay the father fifty sheckels and take her as wife with no possibility of divorcing her.
So, premarital sex is not strictly disallowed by the Bible, but it does say that you have to marry the woman after you have sex with her (if you get caught). Otherwise, when she is found to not be a virgin on her wedding night, she can be killed for it.
I think that speaks rather strongly against premarital sex. However, as I said, it's been translated many times. I can't vouch for what the original Hebrew text might say.
XT
Hi Churchgal.
In response to XT I would cite this link: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/
WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html. You've probably seen it, but it very nicely makes the point that not many people these days would choose to live life according to the law written down in the pentatuch. I tend to agree w/ reverend mommy, especially the "the way that emotions and love and lust become entangled" part. In my younger, wilder days I learned that there was no such thing as "just having sex." I suppose that with lots of effort you could get to such a point, but to divorce sex from intimacy and emotional attachment would *definitely* move you away from god (IMHO) (note that this is the problem with prostitution - not the act per se, but the seperation of sex and intimacy which it demands).
As for New Testament admonishments against sex, most of those come from Paul, who had a big problem with sex generally. Paul was a truly astounding person, but he was still just a person, and I find it sad that two thousand years of history have been colored by his prejudices (against sex, against women).
As you can see, I definitely am not one of those that believes that the bible is the literal word of god. For a nice discussion of this you could try "The Good Book, Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind" by Peter J. Gomes.
And remember, as long as you are questioning your actions, you're probably OK.
churchgal, I always try to use the Great Commandment as my ethical rule. If you are in an intimate relationship and it is equally loving to yourself and to your, er, neighbor, I think it's okay. I don't expect my children to be virgins when they marry, although their father and I were, but I do hope they will have gotten the message that respect for the other person is a spiritual requirement for sexual intimacy that is not abusive to self or, well, let's just again say neighbor.
yeah, i don't know if i'm strictly cool with living with rules written for tribal cultures. women always got the short end of the stick on those.
but thanks everyone for indulging my whiny put fest!
i remember when one of our pastors was giving a sermon on the commandments and on the sunday she was going to talk about sex, all the 30-somethings were packed in the first 15 rows, paying real close attention.
what she said came down to this: thou shalt not abuse yourself nor your 'neighbor' with sex. my roommate took that opportunity to poke me in the ribs.
what about others who read the injunction more absolutely?
Great blog... great dialogue.
Don't forget; in the ancient world, casual sex carried the risk of pregnancy and by extension childbirth and/or death. It also bound families together. Exclusive life-long monogamy was also the only way that men could be sure of paternity. So back then, sex was as serious as a heart attack.
So it's not surprising that pre-sexual revolution societies would develop taboos around sex outside of marriage.
I think the interesting (and blasphemous) question would be this one: what would the Law and and the Prophets have said if a) the society was matriarchal and/or b) sex could be enjoyed casually without fear of death, pregnancy, or social upheaval
c) society could readily and reliably establish paternity without locking a woman up for 9 months.
I don't know what the religious or theological answer is, but I hope this armchair socioanthropological perspective helps.
the socioanthropological answer always gets me - but it's so hard to fit faith in a handy dandy science, huh? i mean, that answer completely makes sense to me and makes me think 'Huh, therefore, that premarital sex prohibition no longer applies to me.'
but it's not that simple because then there's the whole spiritual thing that reverend mommy mentioned.
it makes it very hard to navigate.
you know?
Wow, you've gotten popular, ding.
I still don't think you can ignore the cultural implications of polygamy here. Why is it that in the Old Testament a man could have as many wives as he wanted? Or that he could take conquered virgins to essentially be sex slaves? Or that he could marry his brother's wife if the brother died? Those sorts of things make it hard to take any notions of faithfulness and intimacy seriously.
Going back to your initial question, I would agree with the respondent who noted that prohibitions against premarital sex act as a protection against unwanted pregnancy/bearing a child in the context of an uncommitted relationship/nonsupportive family...which would, in turn, in a patriarchal society, protect both women from further social vulnerability and protect men's "property rights."
That's for all you (fertile) heterosexual unmarried folks, BTW...not my issue!;-) (Actually, despite my inner redhead occasionally wanting to whoop it up, I have positively Victorian standards for courtin' and sparkin'. Which may be why I spend my evenings reading theology and surfing the Net.;-))
To me sexual ethics, as others have noted, is all about sexual fidelity to one's partner, and to treating sex as a sacred, caring act between committed partners and not as a means for manipulating or humiliating or exploiting for one's own gratification.
BTW...I'm blushing crimson red (the Victorian thing and all), but...honey, as far as "the big O" goes, you don't need a man; you don't even need another person. [grin]
That didn't come out quite right.;-)
I'm not even going to ask, lutheranchik. :)
ding -
WOW check out the dialogue going on here!! dang! i feel as though i'm in the minority, which is where i usually end up. i find that the overwhelming responses are rife with, "i think". can you just imagine the guy who put together the manual on assembling a bike listening to the consumer saying, "well, WHY do i have to put this bolt here? it SEEMS fine to me. i THINK i'll do it this way". obviously the guy who wrote the book knows how it's all supposed to go together and what works best. if we understood everything, there would be no need for faith i suppose; taking god at his word. i guess i'm being overly simplistic again. . . .
i think i'll just sit back and watch the dialogue continue ;)
but saying 'i think' isn't quite the same as saying 'i'm hedging my bets here.' it's acknowledging healthy skepticism toward the idea that an idea governing sexual activity forged thousands of years ago is still *exactly* relevant.
the bolt on a bike clearly has only one location.
i don't *think* that we can say exactly the same thing about sex now. heh.
and i'm loving that all y'all came out to visit!
jesus chick, it's not that you're being overly simplistic, it's just that there are others posting here who have a different belief about the Bible. I hold it dear, but I don't believe the words were literally set down by God "himself." The documents are a product of their time and place, I believe.
To start out by addressing greg's comments and working outward:
Add me to the list of those who do not want to live by Mosaic law. In fact, the whole point of Jesus's death was to free us from the burden of fulfilling and impossible law.
The question was: is there a Biblical basis for abstinence until marriage. The answer is: unequivocally. The question then becomes (as Churchgal is wondering) how closely should modern society follow a blueprint enacted for a nomadic desert tribe several thousand years ago?
One of the reasons I included the information on stoning a woman who has been raped or possibly forcing her to marry her rapist is to highlight the fact that not many of us truly want to go back to that way of life. I have a daughter. I certainly don't want her to be killed because she consented to have sex and I'm even more against the idea that she should be killed because someone held her down, cut off her clothes, and raped her.
I do believe that the Bible was not intended to render society stagnant. Jesus surely kicked down a few doors in his time. We should, however, be careful which doors we open and why.
Sexual morality is a rough subject to try to cover in a thousand words or less. That's why there are thousands of books on the topic. A lot of how you conceive of the issue depends on your theology. Some say that we should try to adhere to the OT teachings and some say that, since we are forgiven anyway, we can do what we want. Somewhere between the two, I suspect, is the truth.
I don't think someone will go to Hell for being promiscuous. I do know that over-promiscuity can make a Hell of your existence on earth. My general take on the subject is that sex just for the physical pleasure of it can generally lead you to some bad areas of life. The holy sex that rev. mommy speaks of - one that unites body and soul - is much more rare and wonderful.
Personally, I aim for the latter, but if I only get the former I'm not disappointed.
XT
xt -
heh. that made me totally laugh.
Ding-
I have started this comment about your post about 10 times but get stalled on where to start on my thoughts.
First, I would agree with Rev. Mommy about the "stuff" in 1 Cor 6:18 which asks us to flee sexual immorality. Flee is pretty clear.
Second, I would ask the converse question... "Where does the Bible say it is ok to have sex in a relationship other than marriage?"
Third, yes the Bible was written a long time ago. Yes, is was written by a man. Yes, it was a different society than the one we live in today. But it is my belief that God is bigger than the confines of time and mores. He knew what He was doing when He set out these guides to live by. He made us and knows us in a way we can never understand. He didn't say, "Here's the Bible. Follow what I have said until you feel it has become irrelevant. Or until you have an area of your life in which you are dissatisfied." Some bristle with the whole "the road is narrow" idea. But here's the truth... it is. I know this may come off as something other than the tone I am trying to express. Please let me know if it has and I will do my best to clarify.
In that case, proverbs31woman, what's your stand on slavery?
I have no right to jump in on this, really, but I have a hard time keeping quite in a good theological debate.
One thing we have to remember about the Old Testament is that the world was a different place then, not just the Jews. Women were property and had very little rights when they were not attached to a man. I don't like it. And I don't believe God liked it. But He didn't invent it either.
So, when we look at things like taking wives of conquered people, and marrying your dead brother's wife, we have to remember that this was not about getting to have sex with lots of women, but rather PROVIDING for women who now had no man to provide for them. It was as much about obligation as anything. If you kill an entire village of men, you have to take care of the women who now have no way to do business.
Martha-
Ok, here's my quick response amidst dressing my two preschoolers...
Slavery is spoken about in Lev. 25:44. Which scripture are you specifically referring to? Nowhere does the Bible condone slavery, but it recognizes its existence. God's laws offered many guidelines for treating slaves properly. If you look at Lev. 25:39, "If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee." It was a reality of society and addressed by God but not commanded by him.
This can be translated to the issue of sex outside of marriage. He recognized that the temptation would be there so he gives us guidelines for sex as well. Don't engage in fornication. The original word for this is pornevia - transliterated word is porneia which means illicit sexual intercourse.
Ok, gotta run. The kids are being quiet and you know what that means...
My 5 year old would say, "yes, yes and double yes!"
don't know about anyone else, but the analogy of child=subject makes my eyebrow go up.
i've never liked infantilizing discourse. (not even in grad school.)
People got to do what they got to do. So, let them go at it. . . As far as the bible; I like the comments I'm reading. keep up the great work Lil Girl.
Ding-
Ok, this made my eyebrows scrunch together and then do the one up - one down thing. What do you mean?
i've just never liked language infantilizing women. it makes it too easy to discount what we think. in discussions like this, about sexuality and faith, often religious folk fall back on this verbal shorthand: be as a child....blah blah blah.
yeah, well, i'm not a child. i have serious thoughts about why i do what i do (warts and all, struggles and all) and hearing analogies like 'when i tell my 5 yr old not to do something it's for their protection' puts my hackles up.
it equates an adult position with a childish temper tantrum, and that's not necessarily what's going on here (though that is how it was first framed.) i, and others like me, aren't children acting out, waiting for a time out from our patriarchal control.
we're adults who have serious questions, no matter how temperamentally we may have phrased them.
So I'm trying to get this straight in my brain... Is it the "chld of God" thing that you don't like? Seeing Him as your Father and you His child? Thus the comparison to parent/child relationship. The wiser and the one who is being taught and shaped? Just trying to understand where you're coming from on this...
Hope you had a blessed Easter and that your job search is going well.
Sadly, I am not a Proverbs 31 paragon of womanhood. I hate domestic work and pay someone to do it for me; I’m not particularly thrilled with the idea of getting married and I really can’t stand children. Really. Can’t. Stand. Them. So, language that appeals to and forwards an image of gentle femininity (i.e., The Angel in the House) falls on tin ears.
I have no issue with being a child of God. I just happen to be one of those kids who like to ask a lot of questions.
What I have a problem with is the story-time tone one gets when using the language of parenthood and childhood to make a point about how a 35 year old woman thinks. I am unmoved by it. There are few authorities to which I surrender without struggle and the rhetorical authority of the parent/child binary isn’t one of them. (Family rumor has it that my first word was an adamant No.) I can’t help that I get a little bristly when I’m admonished to become ‘like’ a child. What’s so great about being a child?
Because that language tends to erase or skip over entirely the serious thoughts/doubts people like me have about certain things in the Bible. It’s all well and good to say, It’s a point of faith and you just have to submit to it. But that’s basically saying “Don’t worry your pretty head about it. It’s there for a reason. Just do it.”
Do I have a fundamental problem with surrendering to the authority of God? Not really. Are there some things I disagree with? Absolutely. Will I surrender on these points of contention? Eventually, probably. But not without a struggle.
(And it’s a funny thing: most things I totally believe, like the Jonah and whale thing. My friends laugh at me, but I totally believe it. No sex before marriage? Ehhh…still don’t get it.)
I don't know if I have misunderstood your tone, as it can be hard to read, but it seems you may have misinterpreted mine.
First of all, if I gave the impression by my user name that I am all the things listed in Proverbs 31, I appologize. It is actually just something I aspire to. And although I am a wife and mother, several of the verses that I like the best have nothing to do with that. What I appreciate about this woman, composite or not, is her dilligent work, her wise planning, her care for those around her. Verses like 18 that show her wisdom and capability as a woman - (emphasis mine) "SHE considers a field and buys it; out of HER earnings she plants a vineyard."
Here is my favorite part (verses 25-26, 29-31)
"She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come.
She speaks with wisdom and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all.
Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate."
The Father God/Child Christian thing...
Do you think that because you can't stand children, this in some way impacts your view on the Father/Child issue? Being a child doesn't mean unintelligent, tempermental, valuless, irritating. Quite the contrary. When I see God as my father I see someone who loves me, warts and all. Who bends instantly to hear my voice in joy, fear, complaint, defiance. Who lets me stumble and fall but then helps me back up. Who asks me to stretch and grow in times of joy and difficulty. That is a good parent, not condescension.
And I'll just say too that I think God appreciates Christians who continue to seek out and flesh out their faith. Not just taking what they are told at face value. So when you say you're someone who will ask questions, that is great. Just be sure you are mainly asking God.
I can't tell if you appreciate this online discourse or if you are irritated by it. I have enjoyed thinking about all these issues and how to respond. It has stretched me a good deal too. Thanks for that.
of course i've enjoyed it!
this is the most action this blog has seen in a year!
this conversation has done much to shift my thinking - as well as my actions. just this past easter weekend i girded my loins, gritted my teeth and spent saturday night with my roommate watching movies instead of thrashing sweatily on the northside with a beau.
so, yes. this petulant temper tantrum of mine can produce fruit. (cranky and bitter fruit, but it's fruit.)
YES! you GO girl!!
yeah...celibacy. how wonderful. yay for me.
I'm glad some things have given you a new perspective to ponder. I think it is really a great thing that you are willing to be challenged in your faith. I'd love to continue the dialogue, but I'm not sure what else I could say that I haven't already said. I did think of you today while my kids were dancing to Frankie Goes to Hollywood. Here's the parting wisdom "Relax, don't do it, when you want to go to it." No scripture reference for that however. ;)
Just want to ditto what jesus chick and proverbs 31 woman had to say. God is the same yesterday, today and forever, what applied then applies today. He is the creator and knows what's best for His creation. No, you might not go to hell for it, but God can't bless us in the here and now if we don't follow His rules and His only. HE has His reasons and our ways are not His ways so we can't always understand but He doesn't say to understand Him He says obey Him and then He can bless us. Many blessings to you!
anon -
thanks for stopping by.
i've just never been a fan of blind obedience. the 'God said it, I believe it' only goes so far for me.
the comments that talked about intimacy and bonds makes more sense to me as a reason for chastity than just a 'God says so.'
but that's just me.
Post a Comment