The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pre-Marital Sex is it wrong


Wrong? No, no way! Haven’t you heard? We are free from the law!!! Yeeeehhhaawwww!!! God doesn’t care if we do what He says in the Bible. Heck, we don’t even need the Bible. It’s ok to just make something up and go with that. Or, do what someone else says is right. Anything but, follow the Bible.
O.K., that was a bit of sarcasm. My very unprofessional opinion is an emphatic, YES. My reason would be that God’s “law” is higher than man’s law. It is holy and brings good to those who keep it. (Can’t work for your salvation by keeping it but, because we love Him and can discern truth and desire what is right - TO HIM - seems like a good reason to me. You? However, there are a lot of people and churches that would just call it love not to be honest about the truthful standard God has given us for our good, if you’re into negating any responsibility to the Almighty or your neighbor. My unsolicited advice is, go with God! Blessings and Peace to you, Garf!

Can a Christian woman also be a Sex-worker
Pre-marital sex

My previous post may seem similar to other posts. That’s because God’s Word about what is right and wrong is always the same. With the Almighty, righteousness is always in, not a passing fad. Pretty cool, huh?


What do you mean by “pre-marital”? Do you mean prior to a legal contract? Or do you mean prior to a life-long agreement between the couple?

Marriage before and during the first few centuries did not involve a legal contract. The couple’s life-long agreement WAS their marriage, and it was celebrated by a public wedding in acknowledgement of the fact. So if by “pre-marital” you mean prior to the couple’s life-long agreement, then it is wrong. But if you mean prior to some legal contract then it is NOT wrong.

A man and woman who became missionaries in the same mission field, wanted to get married. In that particular country you could not get legally married unless you became Roman Catholics. So the couple made their marriage vows before God to be together as long as they lived. After that they lived together as a married couple. Did they do anything wrong or immoral?


A person who is full of faith is faithful. If you and your girlfriend are quite happy having sex before marriage, there’s every chance one or both of you have been happy to do so before with someone else, and before that too. It’s a mindset that encourages faithlessness, not faithfulness.

Jesus endorsed marriage. I think it wise and good to seek blessing on your union, both from God and from friends and family. I also think it’s wrong to steal away the joy of celebration, both from God and from friends and family.

The value of something is measured by how carelessly you give it away.


Hi Garfield-cat.

The majority of Christians would indeed believe this and rightly so. If you care for tradition and the testimony of the church like some do, then know that the early christians strongly rejected all non-marital sex and almost all churches have preserved this since.

As Christians we are called to quench all passions that we may bring all glory to God – which is the highest and strongest desire in men to ever be satisfied. If we cannot do this we are to marry. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul writes: “…but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:9). Just previously, Paul had called all sexual passion outside of this marital covenant sexual immorality, writing: “Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). Marriage then, is the remedy for all sexual immorality. As Paidon said, marriage isn’t a legal contract. Marriage is an agreement, a promise. It is, as Jacques Ellul succinctly said: “…an act of the word, the word given, the word exchanged, the word witnessed by others.” It has nothing to do with an elaborate ceremony, wedding bands, or the signing of a marital contract. If I marry, I would rather not have a “priest” present and I would rather not sign any contracts (but I doubt my bride would be so “radical” :smiley: ). But it is a serious, life-long commitment, with or without a written contract, to protect us from sexual immorality.

While a good marriage brings much glory to God, a single-life serving Him also brings just as much (Scriptures seems to hint that its actually better!). Although it mightn’t seem the easiest way, it certainly is the best way. Have faith that God knows what’s best for all of us. So yes, God would indeed expect this 53 year-old unmarried man to literally remain a virgin. Keep yourself and every other single Christian in your prayer – petition God that every wanting, single Christian will have those desires met in a wonderfully fulfilling marriage with that very special person God has decreed they be with for life.



St. Paul’s stance on this seems to be not that it’s wrong for them to have intercourse, but that it’s very wrong for them to have intercourse without taking it seriously as a marriage union.

Within a community of believers (which also ideally ought to be happening), that would also involve respecting how the group expresses and exemplifies this permanent committment to one another. The actual modes of that expression (marriage ceremonies, engagement periods, etc.) may differ from place to place and time to time; it’s the principle that counts.

I think Christian universalists should be especially gung ho about this, as a marriage is intended to represent (in a transposition into a minor key, as C. S. Lewis would put it) the faithful committment of God to His creation for which, and for whom, He gives His own life, never giving up on her or forsaking her (even if she betrays the husband to the death!–although of course she shouldn’t do that, either. :wink: )

This is also the point, I think, behind the fundamental prohibition against remarriage when a couple separates in divorce, even though as a practical matter God allows it due to the hardness of our hearts (and to some extent in pity for our circumstances).


I know very little about Revelation (or how URers put things together), but isn’t the Bride just the church – the firstfruits only? They are called out from Babylon the Great, and then marry the Christ. I’m not sure who are the guests to this marriage, but afterwards there are a lot of people who are against the Christ, implying not everyone gets to be part of the Bride? Or do you suggest that the Bride is added to (with the remainder of creation) after their stint in the Lake of Fire?


I was thinking more along the lines of OT and Ephesian references than RevJohn.

However, the Bride at the end is evangelizing people outside the New Jerusalem to repent of their sins and enter and join them in communion, which would involve being reconciled with God in (metaphorically) a bridal union, just as the redeemed are already the Bride.

If the scope of God’s salvation involves all sinners and not only an elected fraction of sinners, then everyone is nominally the Bride even if Arminianism is correct and some are hopelessly lost.

However, a Calvinistic or Universalistic persistence of God’s salvation of sinners is often what is being spoken of in the scriptures regarding God’s relationship to the Bride: God never gives up on her.

Being brought out of Babylon into the New Jerusalem is very much to the point, since rebel Jerusalem in the OT is spoken of in terms extremely similar to that of Babylon: both for example are regarded as corrupt adulterous sorceresses who claim the self-existent prerogatives of deity and deny that they are widows.


this question is one that is answered differently by different traditions and different cultures.

honestly, i don’t know anymore. i was raised in the oppressively puritan view of most of North America, that pre-marital sex was absolutely what the Bible called fornication, etc etc. all i know now is that i can’t be absolute about anything except God Himself, and even then, my knowledge of Him is not absolute.

my only advice is that you need to find out what your own heart says…and then check it out against what God says. the only problem is that if you’re like me, chances are it’s hard to hear what God is saying over the shouting of hormones and emotion.
that’s why it can be best to just cool it and wait, because otherwise people can be hurt.

HOWEVER, i think people who don’t have sex can destroy each other just as well as those who do have sex. this isn’t itself a reason not to, just as the opposite isn’t a reason to.

i think God wants us to respect sex and each other. if we treat each other as things, i think that’s when it gets sinful. but you can have that in marriage too.

personally, i’ve seen (and done) alot of stuff that i would’ve point-blank called sin before, and now i’m not so sure.

provided you do it in love, the standard response of waiting til marriage is really the safest option.

saying that, North American Christianity elevates sex to a very mystical status that for some is almost idolatrous. this view of it can cause damage in itself…i’ve seen it.

Pre-marital sex

I totally agree with this.

Edited to add: also totally agree with Sherman’s whole subsequent post below. :slight_smile:


The meaning of fornication is debated in Christian circles as to whether it is any sex outside of marriage, or just the sexual acts and relationships specifically forbidden in the Law. From the aspect of building a healthy, happy, and lasting marriage and family, sex before marriage is not helpful, I believe. And with most people it certainly isn’t honoring one’s parents. But do I think or feel negatively towards people who are sexually active outside marriage? Nope. I leave that up to God and their conscience. I encourage people to love God and walk in grace, forgiveness, and love towards others. As for my children, I encourage my sons to treat young ladies as their sisters, honoring and respecting them, and protecting them. And part of that protection is protecting them from my sons own selfish desires that would use these young ladies just to fulfill their sexual desires, not realizing that sex for a woman is much more emotionally and psychologically bonding than with most guys.

Also, if one thinks about it, if one has multiple partners before marriage, why then would one expect all that to change after marriage?


The New Testament clearly declares that ‘fornication’ is sin. It would seem that ‘fornication’ can best be defined by looking at what first century Jews already understood about sexual immorality. Therefore, we need to look at the Old Testament. Are not the verses below enough to lay this issue to rest and affirm that Pre-Marital sex IS wrong?

But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you (Deut 22:20-21).

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says:
If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.


Inkaboutit4ucom replies**********

NOTHING IS WRONG with pre-marital sex.

God is very pro-sex, very pro-nudity, very pro-polygamy, and pro-sexual freedom all over the Bible.

Fornication is NOT single sex , and is NOT pre-marital sex.

The Bible, Paul correctly defines fornication as the joining in with the pagan worship of Baal’s pagan fertility god. Compare 1 Cor 10:8 to Nu 25: 1-9, Nu 31. God gets super angry and kills over 23,000 in Nu 25 and in Nu 31 kills a lot more then 23,000. The reason is NOT because of sex, but the fact they joined in the worship of the Baal pagan fertility god.

Sex was only the pagan’s bait to get people to join in with the worship of their Baal pagan fertility god. God gave all creation sexual freedom at creation SOS 6:8 2 sam 12:8 (unlimited sex partners)

The man made dictionary only reflexs how people use or misuses a word. Bible clearly defines the word correctly if people take the time to study the context as it is used in the Bible. Paul’s fornication definition works for all the 39 fornication verses in the Bible.

The dictionary gives you many definitions for the same word only because of the confusion people have about the word fornication.

Bible Translators used these confused wrong dictionary definitions for fornication to wrongly translate the word fornication into “sexual immoral”. This is a Totally wrong ideal. The super major focus about fornication is NOT sex. The super major focus about fornication is the pagan Baal fertility god worship. This is what God gets super angry over all over the Bible times and God had many thousands of people killed over it. (23,000 plus in Nu 25 and over 30,000 in Nu 31 and more then that all over the Bible all for the same reason.)

On the other hand — God is very pro-sex, very pro-nudity, very pro-polygamy, and pro-sexual freedom all over the Bible.


Man. We get some “strange people” and “strange positions” on this forum! :cowboy_hat_face:

I wish folks would present more down-to-earth and rational positions… as I do with my position, with Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4)…as the most probable, end-times tribulation scenario.

But this “sex stuff”, just illustrates the problems with Sola Scriptura. Like when I hung around, for a year or so…with Christian Science Practitioners…who tried to convince me, that everything is ideas, in the mind of God…and sin, death, and disease are illusions…or clergy from the Liberal Catholic Church…who tried to convince me, that Esoteric Christianity is the true way.

Here’s an interesting article, as an aside…from today’s Patheos’ Catholic newsletter.

And from today’s, Patheos Evangelical newsletter:

And let me share another article, from today’s Patheos Catholic newsletter:

And quote one sentence…which sums might reaction, to this poster’s forum viewpoint here:

I read this article with one eyebrow raised like Spock.

I pondered.

I think more and more folks…might be joining Socrates and his friend Frankenstein…for some good wine, “interesting” stuff to smoke, some good violin music and an atmosphere that fosters…their theological and philosophical ideas.

I wish some folks here, would stop taking lessons from Socrates!


inkaboutit4ucom reply********************************

You quota me but say nothing related to my post at all.

I can easily back up everything I say in harmony with the Bible and with God.

Fornication is greatly misunderstood and greatly taken out of context in the Bible and Dictionary and other greatly mislead others.

When you study the Bible in context you discover the truth. And expose lies.


I agree with Paidion, in other words, sleeping with a girl virtually makes her your wife, this is Ok unless you sleep with any other girl. Sleeping with any other girl is breaking the marriage.

Some argue that since you have to obey the authorities you have to be legally married according to your countries’ laws which would be a civil marriage in my country. I acknowledge the validity of this argument, but God judges the intention so I am more lenient in this matter. Sleeping with various girls is certainly not biblically acceptable but I see no sin if you stay together with only but one girl and sleep with her before marriage or even without marriage at all, as long as you stay with her forever.


Well, since you say to “study the Bible in context” and I “discover the truth” and “expose lies”.

Let’s see what the non-denomination site - Got Questions - has to say:

Or you could convert to Islam. And follow the tradition, of temporary marriages:

Or you can join, one of those remote tribes:

Let me quote a bit:

In a 1989 essay, American-born professor Joanna Overing writes: “The Piaroa daily express to one another their right to private choice and their right to be free from domination over a wide range of matters, such as residence, work, self development, and even marriage.”

i WISH i had a dollar, for every time someone, got a cob - in his or her rear. Then developed a theology, to justify his or her own biases. Like this guy and his mule!

Or someone asks me, to prove something:

“We can not predict what will happen tomorrow, but we can prepare ourselves to face it.”-- Ophelia Callens

Anyone can make a solid case - for ANYTHING - from scripture alone. And I gave examples from Christian Science and the Liberal Catholic Church - with Esoteric Christianity. They can argue effectively that their positions are right - from scripture alone. I have even done it here, for Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4).

However. I also hold the scientific theory…that we live in a world of parallel universes and multiple dimensions. So everyone on this forum…is theologically and philosophically right…in some alternative dimension or parallel universe.

However. There are approximately 32 K Protestant denominations and growing. Each with their scholars and theologians, defending their positions. How can they ALL be right? Unless you agree with my scientific theory? And /or we side with what has been passed down, from Sacred Tradition - like the Eastern Orthodox do.

Of course, it takes a lot - to make me angry. With me doing things, like Mindfulness, Yoga (1, 2), Zen. But when I am, you will know it.

Let me quote again, from the tribal BBC article:

A slower life is a happier life.

Quite apart from the medical discoveries (Dr Plotkin’s limp, which American doctors were unable to help with, was cured by an Amazonian shaman, he says), Dr Plotkin says there is plenty to learn from the lifestyles of isolated communities.

"What we find is that people don’t suffer from stress, heart disease, insomnia, and that they spend time with their families.

“We may not be ready to give up our iPhones and iPads and never eat Thai food again, but the life lessons are clear: slow down, don’t spend time worrying about things you can’t do anything about. I try to live my life along those prescripts.”

Of course, this is what happens - when I become angry!


Inkaboutit4ucom replies**************************************************

Ruth and Boaz had pre-marital sex and God greatly Bless them.

God did not kill them. (has he did in Nu 25 and Nu 31 and many other place where he kill many thousands over pagan fertility god worship.)

God did not punish them in any way. They are in Jesus blood line.

Got Question like most other web sites have the wrong man made definition of the word fornication as “single sex” which is the wrong definition.

Paul in the Bible 1 Cor 10:8 and Nu 25: 1-9 and Nu 31 , defines fornication as the joining with the worship of pagan fertility god

In 1Cor 7 we are missing the detailed letter the Corinth Church wrote to Paul, we have to guess.


IMO the clearest scriptural evidence that premartical sex is wrong is that Paul wrote that to avoid sexual immorality, each man should have a wife. If sex outside of marriage was an amoral way to have sexual release, I don’t think Paul would admonish people to get married.


Right you are, Q!