The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pre-Marital Sex is it wrong


Most religious people totally take many verses totally out of proper context to prove their anti-sex freedom false sexual teaching.

When you properly research Bible sexuality you start at Gen 1;1 and go forward.

1.) Today much of the Church’s Sexual teaching violates basic hermeneutic principles . To study a Bible subject you should start at the beginning, Gen 1:1, and study forward and study the context, culture, and history of the Bible times. They do the opposite with sexuality; they take some verses out of context in the NT and then go backward and ignore all context, culture, and history of the Bible times and come up with the wrong conclusions.

2.) Fornication , Major context connected to negative sexuality talk in all the whole Bible times, both OT and NT is the joining in the worship of a pagan fertility god per Paul’s Bible correct definition, which in the Bible – Paul called “fornication” was the joining in with the pagan fertility god worship, compare 1Cor 10:8 with Number 25: 1-9 , Nu 31:15, 18 which describes and defines fornication. Look up all the word for fornication and you will see will be the case. Study all fornication verse in correct context and all are in pagan worship of pagan god.

Most all negative sex talk in the Bible is related to joining in with the pagan fertility god Baal worship (which Paul Defines as fornication) or stealing another man’s women owned by him.

When you read the whole Bible you would see all the sexual freedom he gives people with NO negative comment of any.

NOT only no negative comment from God also you God greatly promoting polygamy and even forcing people to be polygamy.

Also nudity God demanded his most holy prophet to go 100% NUDE for 3 years even if he did not want to.

God created all things 100% NUDE. God want all people NUDIST God proves it at his creation. We disobey God creation plan and obey sinful Adam and Eve who sinned again God.

Then some religious person want to teach you the opposite of God and tells you that God is anti-nudist.

God created sexuality and said it is excellence. Gen 1:31 Then religious leaders want to tell you sex is evil. Opposite from God.

SOS greatly praise sexual enjoyment and they are NOT married in SOS.

In the OT times, Married women have sex in the middle of their wedding day. After their wedding day they are NOT a virgin.

In SOS she is still a virgin SOS 8:10 meaning they are NOT marriage as many religious hint to you that they are marriage. Most religious leader will never even teach SOS and many if they do make an allegory out of it.

Clearly there is a lot of nude sex play in SOS out side of marriage.

By the end of Splomon’s life he had over 1000 wives and concubines. The only negative from God was that he disobey God letting his pagan wives worship their pagan fertility god and other Baal pagan god in Israel.

If Solomon only had 1000 wives and concubines and NO pagan wives there would no negative comment from any one and not from God either.

King David had over 20++ wives and concubines and God himself said he gave David all his many wives and concubines. And said he could have UNLIMITED SEX PARTNER. 2 Sam 12:8 SOS 6:8.

Then religious leaders tell you polygamy is evil, opposite of what God said. And of course they do not me to question them or disagree with them.

This is where you start researching sexuality.


This subject stirs passions, and some interpreters think Paul does not. My own perception is that Paul (Rom. 1) has a condemning view of ‘homosexuality’, seeing it as epitomizing the choice to reject what we “know,” and then choose to pursue actions which are not “natural” to us, thus “exchanging” or perverting what is “natural” for them into what is “unnatural” to them (i.e. contrary to their nature). I peronally share the modern observation that this is not what most gay friends have done, who actually have desperately tried to choose to be straight (but experienced that as trying to exchange something unwanted that they found in their given nature).

Thus my question above was simply whether we should feel certain that this traditional judgment of regarding homosexuals as abominations makes correct “sense,” or leads to being “gracious” towards homosexuals. My impression is that Biblical culture associated homosexual relations with worshipping idols and with (often married heterosexuals) abusing children for their selfish pleasure, and never contemplates, nor thus can even address, what some Christians affirm today, a loving and faithful covenantal union of believers. My approach is best summed up in Eric Reitan’s recent book, “The Triumph of Love.”


inkaboutit4ucom. replies. ************************************************
Bible Church misunderstands Gal 5:19, 1 Cor 6:9

Again the major context here is the joining in with pagan fertility god Baal worship which was all over the place. Israelite and Christian were alway surrounded and greatly outnumber by these pagan worshippers.

Most all negative sex talk like. this is almost alway in direct connection with this Baal pagan fertility god worship. This is all over the Bible.

If you read the whole Bible, you this pagan fertility god worship everywhere, But at the same time you see God given sexual freedom with no negative words from God everywhere.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness,lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions,heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before , as I have also told you in time past , that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

They totally misunderstand and take it out of Bible context. Gal 5:19-21 Don’t focus on individual words or items because they can be misunderstood and have wrong man made definitions and taken out of context, but look at it as Paul is describing a religion group of pagan fertility god worshipers worshiping the fertility pagan god or they are standing on the opposite street corner. (this is the context) This would be part of the Church’s letters to Paul that we do not have, we have to guess.

Think of a group of people doing these group of items regularly, weekly, if not daily. a similar list 4 other times in the Bible**,(1 Cor 6:9, Eph 5:3-6, Col 3:5-6, Rev 22:14-15)** but they are not the same list they different but the same ideal, a group of item, describing a group of pagans worshiper worshiping a fertility god or other Baal pagan gods.

This was the major religion group of the whole Bible times.

They were out numbered and surrounded by them both in the OT and NT , the whole Bible times…1 Cor 10:8, Nu 25: 1-9, Nu 31 This is the correct context to understand these verses.

Wrong definition of the word fornication. Not single sex , but pagan fertility god worship in hope of getting good farm crops. 1 Cor 10:8 to Nu 25: 1-9 Nu 31 Same thing done in both places. Paul defines the word fornication or sexual immoral as pagan fertility god worship. Pagan fertility god worshiper do not go to heaven.

Fornication , It is the joining in with the worship of the pagan fertility god sex orgy to worship the fertility god. Compare 1 Cor 10:8 to Nu 25:1-9 Nu 31 then religious leaders say single person sex are not saved because of Gal 5:19 fornicators or = to “sex outside one male, one female marriage" are not going to heaven. This is a Wrong conclusion, based on a wrong definition.

**So if you have a normal healthy sex drive you go to hell. 100% wrong. God made sex and gave 100% creation sexual freedom at creation.SOS 6;8 2 Sam 12;8

God said sex is good or excellent Gen 1:31**

**David, Solomon and most every one in the Bible understands they have sexual freedom from God to have unlimited sex partners. 2 Sam 12: 8 , SOS 6:8 all the polygamy in the Bible,

God promote polygamy Nu 31 gave 16,000 pagan girls to 12,000 soldiers. (Remember this is only one battle) Many other examples.**

Many Godly men in the Bible had sex outside the “one male, one female” marriage was no problem to God at all.

There are even Laws in OT to help answer polygamy question like in Ex 21:10, 11


The human shape has not changed over the last 2000 years, so why should God’s law? If homosexuality, prostitution and the like was wrong ago 2000 years ago, why should it be right in our time?


Oh, YOO HOO. Professor Stink About-it. Yoo Hoo.

And you are basing these assumptions on WHAT EXACTLY?

Well, I have

  • A BA from Aurora University in Math

  • An MA from Norwich University in psychology.

  • And I spent several years, taking courses - at the College of Dupage. In many different disciplines - to BOOT.

And you know what, professor?

  • NOT one professor ever accused me - of NOT reading the material.

  • Or asking TOO many questions.

So my personal experience, CONTRADICTS what you said here.

And what about Socrates?


Did folks in the Republic, tell him to read certain books or material?

Socrates: The Father Of Western Philosophy - 5 minute video

NO. Never!. He went around asking questions.

Or take the author Ayn Rand. In her book, Atlas Shrugged…she made the symbol, of one of her main characters - the Question mark.

Or take the TV detective Colombo.

How did he find answers? By asking questions.

And nobody ever told him

  • to read a certain book…

  • check a certain website…

  • Etc.

So I’ll keep on asking questions of you…to find the answers…

After all, you are presenting a viewpoint…that the RC, EO and Protestant churches and theologians…would adamantly disagree with…as well as most folks on this forum.

And YOU are claiming to have…the HOLY GRAIL…of understanding Biblical sexual morality.

So you are either:

  • A genius

  • Psychotic

  • Delusional

  • On drugs

  • Egocentric

  • Etc.

Take your pick, mind you!

And for the record, I have also studied marketing…and direct response copywriting.

So I do know a little bit, about “selling” a product or position.

Which is what you are trying to do.

Am I right?

“Forgiveness is a gift you give yourself.”-- Suzanne Somers


My view is that what is right or wrong does not fundamentally change. If you read me as arguing that being a homosexual was immoral 2000 years ago, then I wasn’t sufficiently clear. I argued precisely that it was always problematic to insist that being homosexual makes one an abomination, and never made moral sense.


Bob, so you think premarital sex is sin but no homosexuality?


I’d add some nuance. I find Paul’s argument that sexual union powerfully unites two persons convincing, and thus that for either sexual orientation, it’s great and most secure fulfillment will be found in a loving and committed covenantal relationship. So as I said before, I see a wise Bible emphasis here is on protecting that secure marital bond, and less on demonizing premarital acts.

Still, I witness that there are problematic vulnerabilities and potential pain in sex apart from such an enduring covenantal relationship, and this suggests real wisdom in the tradition that cautions about pre-marital physical intimacy (especially if that warning can avoid the sense that sex itself is not a wonderful thing).


And on another note - not everyone wants to marry a person who has been promiscuous. For reasons obvious and some not obvious as well.




Yes. But NOT EVERYONE wants to marry a person who has been BRAINWASHED THEIR WHOLE LIFE that sex is sinful, dirty, evil and then if they get married change there lifetime brainwashing to the “opposite”, now thinking sexual enjoyment is now not sinful, not dirty, not evil.

But almost weekly in church she/he hears over and over sex is evil and sex is bad etc. and her brain retreats back to thinking, sex is dirty, is sinful, is evil and maybe more false teaching adds sex is only for reproduction , not for pleasure.

I had a co-worker who divorced his long time old fashion anti-sex wife to marry a prostitute so he would be sure that she did not have all the same anti-sex hang ups his previous anti-sex brainwashed wife had. They became swingers and both greatly enjoyed the sexual freedom and sexual enjoyment to the max.

Some people can not change that lifetime of brainwashing and you can hear hundreds of horrid anti-sex marriage where they go many years with no sexual enjoyment. and the only option you give them is divorce.

God sexual freedom give people many option to enjoy sexual freedom pleasures.

God himself promoted polygamy all over the OT. But many people. think that change in the NT. God’s thinking did not change but the gov’t changed. In pagan Egypt Gov’t and pagan Romans made laws so Hebrews and Christian could only have one man one male marriage in fear. that. they would over populate and over power them.

The Gospels are placed in the NT but they are under the same Age of Law as the OT is under the law and Age of the Law.

Jesus lived under the LAW . Age of Grace did not start until after Jesus DEATH and raising from the dead. That is when the "New Testament ", “Age of Grace”, with only one law, the Law of Love. really started.

Jas 2:12. So whenever you speak, or whatever you do, remember that you will be judged by the law of love, the law that set you free.

Romans 7:4 (GW) In the same way, brothers and sisters, you have died to the laws in Moses’ Teachings through Christ’s body. You belong to someone else, the one who was brought back to life. As a result, we can do what God wants.

Ro 13:9 - For the commandments against adultery and murder and stealing and coveting – and any other commandment are all summed up in this one commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

2Co 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation ; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

God did not change his sexual freedom mind set, but pagan gov’t forces people and try to take away there God given sexual freedom given to all creation at creation.

2 Sam 12:8 , SOS 6:8 Both could have UNLIMITED SEX PARTNERS from God, this is to all creation at creation.

Even USA copy the pagan Roman Empire and try very hard to make every anti-sex law they can come up with, to take away God given sexual freedom.


Nonetheless, our religion comes mainly from the clear NT writings; and none of those writers, as far as I can see, would counsel in favor of promiscuity or sex outside of marriage. As I said, get married is the answer.
I think you present a caricature of those who counsel self-control, abstinence, purity etc - they are NOT people who are brainwashed, brow-beaten, frightened into a pure life - usually not. They could be considered grown-up.
God has made us able to enjoy pleasure, yes; but that can be put aside until one is married; and then you have all the freedom in the world.
We are saturated with sexual messages - and NONE of them by and large EVER counsels self-control, or a higher meaning to sex other than the pleasure -and generally the sex is used TO SELL A PRODUCT.


Yes, and he apparently promoted violence. Which means the Gun Smoke killers, arguing for:

And eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth

An this Pulp Fiction killer, can use the same arguments.

Either the Old Testament stuff still applies in FULL or NOT AT ALL. Except for the elements that Jesus, Paul and the apostles argue for, in the New Testament. But then, you are trying to “sell” the Old Testament… for this day and age , for the sex stuff. But then again, so is the Pulp Fiction killer - for the violence stuff.

But I might have to continue, any “dialogue” for tomorrow. As I have some spiritual groups, to visit tonight.

But then again, we can ALL convert to Islam. And probably find ALL the Old Testament stuff…as well as “temporary marriages”.


Has I have already explain All the NT is under PAGAN Roman Empire rules. NOT GOD’S,

the pagan Roman Empire try very hard to take away both Hebrews and Christians sexual freedom that God gave to all creation at creation.

The pagan gov’t did not permit Hebrews or. Christians to have polygamy.

Godly Hebrews gov’t with God’s rules, rule over Hebrews in the OT.

God wants as much polygamy and sexual freedom to make a large population.

**Prostitution was always legal under King David and King Solomon and most all other Israel kings.

NOTHING wrong with prostitution, accept major problem with pagan fertility god prostitution worshipping their Baal fertility god and whose goal was to seduce or bait all to join in with the pagan fertility pagan god worship…**

All pagans that rule over them outlaw polygamy for fear they would over populate and over power them.

Males had sexual freedom and could have many, to unlimited sex partners.

Women from Gen 3:16 had men authority over their sexual freedom. But women with NO male authority over them also had God given sexual freedom that God gave all at creation to all creation.

God and Hebrew gov’t promoted polygamy to have very large families to make big population to make strong nation.

To understand God’s sexual atitude you have to go back to Gen 1:1 and study everything you see in connection to anything sexual.

Also you need to research the context, culture, everything to clearly figure out the correct context, to get real truth, in proper context.

This is the correct way to do your sexual Bible Research. If you do NOT do this, you come up with wrong conclusions taken out of proper context


Well, there’s not much in your research that I personally can agree with; and I think the consequences of buying in to your sexual world-view would be, and have been, catastrophic.
That’s really all I have to say on the matter.


Of course anecdotal testimony can be used to prove virtually any thesis. And I agreed with you above that a negative tradition toward sex can damage many religious people’s sexual relationships. Nonetheless, every broad secular survey I have read of sexual satisfaction in marriage has shown overall a strong correlation with waiting for sex until marriage, with fidelity in marriage, and with marriage between people devoted to their faith.

Maybe we religious types just dishonestly answer more positively, but no anecdote influences me as much as my own experience that being a one woman man has made me deeply happy and sexually thrilled. If I’m fooling myself, it’s a ride I have no desire to change :slight_smile: But of course if you find your own pursuit of numerous swinging relationships satisfying to the max, I understand why you argue so strongly for that approach.


That’s Dave to Professor Stink About-it.

And nothing in

Nor any reputable contemporary, theologian or scholar - would side with his position either.

And the Gun Smoke and Pulp Fiction killers, can foster the same OT arguments - in their defense.

Actually, folks would be better off…and it would probably be less catastrophic…to buy into my theory, of the tribulation and Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4)


From St. Thomas: “When the lower powers are strongly moved towards their objects, the result is that the higher powers are hindered and disordered in their acts. Now the effect of the vice of lust is that the lower appetite, namely the concupiscible, is most strongly intent on its object, to wit, the object of pleasure, on account of the strength of the pleasure. Consequently the higher powers, namely the reason and the will, are most grievously disordered by lust.”


Not sure I understand what that means… Dave you are quoting St Thomas…

Help me out.


Ok, for better or worse, I have re-worked St. Thomas’s “8 daughters of lust” into the way I understand his intent, but closer to the language we share now. Here is the first installment; when I have completely finished I will post it somewhere.
Here goes:

Question: Does " lust" refer only to sexual desires and pleasures?
We can define a “lustful” man as “one who is dragged toward corruption by means of pleasures.” Now sexual pleasures, above all, draw a man’s mind. Therefore lust is especially concerned with such like pleasures.
So, lust applies chiefly to sexual pleasures, which more than anything else work the greatest havoc in a man’s mind, yet secondarily “lust” applies to any other matters pertaining to excess. Hence a gloss on Galatians 5:19 says “lust is any kind of unrestrained indulgence.”
“Lust” can also be applied to wine , either in the sense in which unrestrained indulgence in any matter is ascribed to lust, or because the use of too much wine affords an incentive to sexual pleasure.

Question: Is every sexual act a sin?
A sin, in human acts, is that which is against the order of reason.
-Now the order of reason consists in its ordering everything to its proper goal in a fitting manner.
-Therefore it is no sin if one, by the dictate of reason, makes use of certain things in a fitting manner and order for the goal to which they are adapted, provided this end be something truly good. Just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of sexual acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the goal of human procreation.

A thing (such as sexual intercourse) may not be a sin, but still may be a hindrance to virtue in two ways:
First, as regards the ordinary sense of virtue: only sin is an obstacle to this kind of virtue.
But what if we aim to higher virtue? Then secondly, as regards the perfect degree of virtue, this virtue may be hindered by that which is not a sin, but a lesser good. In this way sexual intercourse casts down the mind not from virtue, but from the height, i.e. the perfection of virtue.
Virtue depends not on the amount of pleasure, but on conformity with right reason: and consequently the exceeding pleasure attaching to a sexual act directed according to reason, is not opposed to the mean of virtue.
What really matters is how much of an interior appetite is raised by that pleasure. It is not necessarily true that a man cannot seek spiritual things and also reasonably enjoy the sexual pleasures : For it is not contrary to virtue, if the act of reason be sometimes interrupted for something that is done in accordance with reason, else it would be against virtue for a person to set himself to sleep. The real problem is that over-sexualized desire and pleasure are not subject to the command and moderation of reason, is due to the punishment of Adam’s sin, inasmuch as the reason, for rebelling against God, deserved that its body should rebel against it, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 13).