Sunday, May 07, 2006
Question of the Day
If one accepted homosexual conduct as morally permissible under Christian standards of behavior, could one still create a Biblical case against pre-marital sex?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
"create?" Sure.
The Biblical case for pre-marital sex only extends as far as the Biblical definition of marriage. Given that said definition is hardly consistent with modern definitions of marriage and partnership I am not sure it would help.
It is notable that pre (or extra)-marital sex is only bad for the female, Biblically speaking. Even adultery is really only possible if the woman is already married.
I say yes because there can be no marriage between homosexual persons, thus making sexual contact of any sort outside the bonds of holy matrimony "premarital".
Yes, but it requires one to think seriously and critically about God's intentions for sexual expression as a whole. Unfortunately, most folks don't really want to think and talk about this. They would much rather have a list of do's and don'ts.
The question only makes sense if you define homosexual marriage. Then the definition of all homosexual sex as extra-marital goes away.
So, if you define any life-long sexual commitment as marriage, and allow such commitments to happen between men and men, or women and women, then yes, you have a ground to condemn pre-marital homosexual sex while accepting marital homosexual sex.
Now you only need to redefine the church's role as the bride of Christ, the purpose of marriage, the idea of a helpmeet, the roles of mother and father in raising children, and the law of God. :-)
no way. or anything else for that matter.
I'm not so sure that there is anything much in the Bible that leads me to believe that "sexual expression" is valid. Though we have sexual capabilities for the sake of procreation, we are not inherently sexual *IF* we were created in a divine image.
I would also challenge the notion of marriage as a "sexual" commitment. The Bible gives us instances of sex as incidental to the marital relationship between a man and a woman, but the sex itself does not define the relationship. The divorce rate in this country alone should testify to the shallow notion of sexual compatibility as sufficient for a solid relationship. This kind of physical relationship is only, quite literally, "skin deep". There is no depth.
Either way, the Bible is explicit in the list of "do's" and "don'ts". Sexual contact between persons of the same gender is prohibited in both the Hebrew texts as well as the Christian texts. We can make excuses in an effort to appease this culture, but I fear we will come up woefully short.
Hmm. Can one even create any sort of Biblical case for pre-marital celibacy? For both genders. I wonder what the popular morality of Jesus' day was on the subject.
Human being have the immense capacity to rationalize anything and find proofs for their positions in the most unlikely places. The Bible says, "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die." So let's all go party-hardy and not worry about the consequences.
Does this ability to "create" our own rationalizations make something moral? No. So while the answer to John's question is "yes" that doesn't mean it's morally right.
Can one even create any sort of Biblical case for pre-marital celibacy?
Cute.
Can you make a case for the marriage ceremony? The marriage ceremony is something we added to the marriage given by God. If you cannot accurately pinpoint the ceremony, you will have trouble defining pre-marital.
The case against pre-marital sex is overwhelming, but the post started with "if".
Post a Comment