Biblical justification for "no sex before marriage" precept?

[Twisted_Ferret]

I can't recall it ever actually saying this. You're not supposed to desire another man's wife, and Paul says it is "better to marry than to burn", but neither one seems to necessarily lead to "save virginity for marriage." If I had a girlfriend who wasn't another man's wife, and we had regular intercourse so neither of us "burned" (with lust, presumably?), it'd be moral?

Catholic opinions especially welcomed, since I've been discussing it with a Catholic. But any* thought anyone has on this subject is welcome!

*Probably.

Edit: Found this:

Originally Posted by http://www.theologian.org.uk/pastoralia/premartialsex.html

1. Biblical

Given that there is no single text explicitly banning this activity, how do we know what the Bible says?

Genesis 2:24

Marriage is instituted by God at the very start of biblical history. The order of this verse is important - leave, cleave then one flesh (which is physical and spiritual union - not just sex, but not less than that). The positive teaching is that the physical creation is good, sex is good (and pre-fall). Note that the cause of the Fall is not sex (it’s to do with the knowledge of good and evil, not knowledge of each other!).

Deuteronomy 22:13-29

Several important things emerge from this chapter. First, virginity at the time of marriage is expected. Second, sex before marriage is termed "a disgraceful act" in verse 21 and is taken very seriously indeed. The verb translated "prostituted herself" is zãnãh (see below). Third, pre-marital sex, even if it is between two consenting adults, is considered wrong (verses 23-24) Notice that in this case the "engaged-married" distinction is almost non-existent. Fourthly, sex before marriage must lead to marriage (v.28-29).

1 Corinthians 6-7

In 6:12-20 Paul combats a sharp dualism between body (which apparently doesn’t matter) and spirit (which is supposedly unaffected by physical things). Casual sex is definitely not as trivial as satisfying a physical hunger (verse 13). Bodies are important because God has bought them and will raise them. Note that pre-marital sex is not a mini-marriage, but it is encroaching upon the holy ground of marriage in an unacceptable way. Physical union should not take place outside of a “one flesh” (i.e. marriage) union. The point is that to be united with someone other than one’s spouse (in this case, a non-Christian, and more specifically, a prostitute) is to tear oneself away from Christ with whom we are spiritually united as Christians; Paul is not intending to say that every illicit sexual encounter creates a new marriage (see Calvin’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:16).

But it is not just prostitution that is addressed here, or just dualism either. In chapter 7 Paul addresses the situation of two unmarried Christians who are burning with passion (7:8-9) who should either exercise self-control or get married (cf. verses 36-38). The underlying assumptions are the same as those in Deuteronomy 22.

zãnãh / porneia

It could be argued that the Bible never addresses the modern dilemma of two Christians who love each other and want to have sex before marriage, because these two significant words porneia and zãnãh actually refer to prostitution not pre-marital sex. Zãnãh is translated by porneia in the LXX, and they are roughly equivalent terms. These words are used in descriptions of prostitution (indeed zãnãh occurs most often in metaphorical descriptions of Israel’s “whoredom" with idolatry). However, they do not just refer to prostitution.

See the relevant dictionary articles for more details: Eg. in NIDOTTE: "In the OT, fornication describes illicit sex by a female that violates a relationship with a male, either a husband or a father... In many cases illicit sex, not sex for hire, is in view." and in NIDNTT: "In the Pauline writings the word group pornê denotes any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse." (see bibliography). See these verses (and contexts) for use of porneia: Mat 5:19; Acts 15:20; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; 1Thess 4:3; Rev 9:21.

The word “fornication” has gone out of fashion and is not in common use to describe non-marital sex. However, it is an excellent translation for porneia, which basically referred to any kind of sex outside of marriage, be it gay or straight, prostitution, incest, or bestiality. This has been contested (see the debate between B. Malina and J. Jensen in Nov.Test. 14 (1972) and 20 (1978)) but the overwhelming weight of scholarship and all the available evidence from the ancient world points firmly in this direction. “Flee sexual immorality (porneia) and pursue self-control” (cf. 1 Thess 4:1-8) was the straightforward message to Christians in a sex-crazed world.

[Nihilist]

in a time when knowledge of how to avoid pregnancy was suppressed or just not available, not fucking was the only for sure way. they did know that much.

why did they want it like that? because back then you needed a family unit or youd end up dead, starving, or mom would have to sell her pussy.

in short, a family unit was the best insurance against bad shit. perhaps not much of one, but more or less the only one.

also, it made for big families to take care of one another, therefor building up a youth populace for war purposes.

im certain that god doesnt send ppl to hell for it. after all, it seems that most ppl have so many more deserving reasons to rot in hell.

and, when you take into account the very real and constant threat of getting knocked up, being committed really is the best thing for a kid, if that is to happen.

[jackketch]

Note that the cause of the Fall is not sex (it’s to do with the knowledge of good and evil, not knowledge of each other!).

First off that ^^^ is just wrong.

Secondly there is NO direct prohibtion regarding pre-marital sex in scripture. There are however several passages that xtians commonly interpret to mean thus. As usual they then royally miss the actual point and meaning of those passages.

[Rizzo in a box]

Different times call for different things. If you aren't looking at it in context, you're looking at it as abstracts and ideals.

[Twisted_Ferret]

Originally Posted by Nihilist

in a time when knowledge of how to avoid pregnancy was suppressed or just not available, not fucking was the only for sure way. they did know that much.

why did they want it like that? because back then you needed a family unit or youd end up dead, starving, or mom would have to sell her pussy.

in short, a family unit was the best insurance against bad shit. perhaps not much of one, but more or less the only one.

also, it made for big families to take care of one another, therefor building up a youth populace for war purposes.

im certain that god doesnt send ppl to hell for it. after all, it seems that most ppl have so many more deserving reasons to rot in hell.

and, when you take into account the very real and constant threat of getting knocked up, being committed really is the best thing for a kid, if that is to happen.

Well, that says why it might be a good thing. I agree. But it doesn't say what Biblical passage makes Christians believe it as a precept of their religion, not just common sense.

Originally Posted by jackketch

First off that ^^^ is just wrong.

Secondly there is NO direct prohibtion regarding pre-marital sex in scripture. There are however several passages that xtians commonly interpret to mean thus. As usual they then royally miss the actual point and meaning of those passages.

I was hoping you'd reply. Tell me, good sir, what do you think the meaning and/or point of those passages is?

And why do you think the Fall has to do with sex? I've never heard that. o:

Originally Posted by Rizzo in a box

Different times call for different things. If you aren't looking at it in context, you're looking at it as abstracts and ideals.

Isn't the Bible filled with those?

[jackketch]

Originally Posted by Twisted_Ferret

.

And why do you think the Fall has to do with sex? I've never heard that. o:

Sorry, I was perhaps unclear. I don't think the Fall had anything to do with sex. I was disagreeing with his assertion that it had to do with good/evil knowledge.

Its written very clearly that the Fall was because Eve disobeyed God (via his mouthpiece her husband) and thought she knew better

The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom

.

Adam sinned by listening to his wife.

To the man he said: "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat,

The Knowledge of Good and Evil was a result of the Fall not the cause.

As to the passages, I think I did a thread about some of them, I'll check.

[Twisted_Ferret]

I'd agree with your interpretation of Genesis, then, but I'd be interested to see if any Christians disagreed. I've often heard the knowledge thing thrown about.

Originally Posted by jackketch

As to the passages, I think I did a thread about some of them, I'll check.

It was remembering your thread that made me decide to post here, but I couldn't find it even with Search.

[jackketch]

Originally Posted by Twisted_Ferret

I'd agree with your interpretation of Genesis, then, but I'd be interested to see if any Christians disagreed. I've often heard the knowledge thing thrown about.


It was remembering your thread that made me decide to post here, but I couldn't find it even with Search.

Uhm nor I, I think i was getting mixed up with this one http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1508259.

(which deals with the subject but from an S&A perspective).

If you've read my sticky in S&A (as fin_de_siecle) you'll know I'm not really in the mood for writing theological threads at the mo', sorry.