General Question

mrswho's avatar

What do you think of pre-marital sex and why?

Asked by mrswho (1690points) April 11th, 2009

This is not meant for anyone to be judgemental but I felt like asking very personal questions of my fellow flutherers because I’m curious where people get their personal values from. Is it parents, religion, culture, or something else?

Its none of my business and I don’t care what other people do in the privacy of their own homes, but I personally want to wait until marriage for sex for religious reasons.

Do you believe in waiting until marriage, or love, or until there is absolutely nothing on TV (which is understandable)?

Is love required? Is knowing them?

Please don’t bother responding with anything judgmental or rude to the other jellies who share their views on this personal issue.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

164 Answers

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

I don’t see any problem with it. It’s in no way immoral to have sex before marriage.

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

I think sex is a wonderful thing, between two consenting adults, who are both ready for it. Marriage is a rather outdated subject, or so it seems nowadays. I believe in marriage, and I think it says something about two people when they commit to each other in a ceremony. I am rather old fashioned and prefer marriage over any other form of co-habitation. an old-fashioned atheist, there’s an odd concept.

Premarital sex is just like post marital sex, except since it is sometimes viewed as immoral or taboo, the passion might be a little hotter.

Facade's avatar

My parents, who are Christians, raised me to be the same, and I follow that as well as I can. I believe people should abstain until marriage. I also believe God forgives all sin.

asmonet's avatar

It’s up to the individual.
I think love is required, but I don’t look down on others who just enjoy the pleasure provided they are safe and smart about it.

live_rose's avatar

I want to be in love with anyone I have se with it’s a private intimate thing for me . . .but I cant say with any certainty because ive never had sex. But it’s up to everyone what’s ok with them

crisw's avatar

The strictures placed on premarital sex are primarily based in religious teachings. If you don’t follow such teachings, then there’s absolutely nothing wrong with premarital sex, provided it is both practiced safely with contraception and absolutely consensual.

classyfied's avatar

I am still a virgin, but I have no qualms about having pre-marital sex. However, I personally want to wait for someone that I love so that it’s special, especially since I’ve held out this long :].

augustlan's avatar

I personally could not imagine waiting until marriage to find out whether my partner and I were sexually compatible. I have no problem with those who see this differently, but that just seems like a huge leap of faith.

Here’s what I’ve told my girls regarding sex:
It is to be shared by two people who love and trust one another, when you are both mature enough to be responsible about it and feel ready for it.

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

@augustlan, I thought your keyboard was broken, it was taking you so long to finish crafting your response.

AstroChuck's avatar

You know, it’s not really premarital sex unless you plan on getting married.

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

I wouldn’t marry someone without having had sex beforehand. Sex, while not the MOST important aspect of any relationship (let alone marriage) IS most definitely a VERY important part. I would need to know whether or not I clicked with someone on that level.

Plus I think the whole wait for marriage thing is outdated anyways. It was originated in a time when men wanted to be sure they were the only one who had “deflowered” a girl (and really was only so they would have sole “ownership” of the girl and could be certain any offspring weren’t that of someone prior to them). Not to mention up until the last half century marriage was often times done by the time people were 19 or 20. It’s not that hard to wait til 19 or 20 anyways.

mrswho's avatar

@augustlan That’s one hangup I have with my religious ideas of wanting to wait. You should test drive a car before you buy it. I also don’t want to disappoint him and kind of feel like I trapped him now he must live with my mediocrity.

Also I would like to thank everyone for the maturity and non judgmental non preachy character of your responses.

@AstroChuck haha hmm… good point… loophole. Ok, problem solved. That’s the end of that.

KrystaElyse's avatar

I agree with @augustlan and @westy81585, I don’t think I could wait until marriage. I’m not saying that sex is some sort of deciding factor in whether or not I marry someone, but I think that i’d like to get to know that person intimately before I marry them. Even though I personally wouldn’t wait, I respect anyone’s decision for waiting and wouldn’t pressure them into doing something that they don’t want to do.

Facade's avatar

@augustlan Learning together would be part of marriage. Also, talking about it beforehand would help.

augustlan's avatar

@Facade Trust me on this one… some people will not ever learn to be good lovers. ;-)

May2689's avatar

I think its very important you get to know one another sexually before you get married. As long as you both know what youre doing and do it maturely.

Facade's avatar

@augustlan I’m gonna go ahead and disagree :) Can you tell me what would cause a person to have such a handicap?

Bluefreedom's avatar

Sex before marriage should be an independent decision made by the couple without any outside influences affecting their views such as friends or family opposed to it or a religion saying it isn’t acceptable.

Whether some think it is okay or others don’t, I myself don’t see any problems with sex before marriage. If two people are in love and they have a strong, intimate relationship, they should feel free to have sex whenever they want to.

May2689's avatar

Its up to you, really…

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@Facade She’s right. Some people really just aren’t any good at sex. OR for whatever reason you just don’t click with them sexually. And no amount of trying or talking or whatnot changes it (i’ve tried). And what makes it worse, is there’s really no “indicator” that you won’t click with someone in bed. You might be able to gauge if they’ll be inexperienced, but that is easily fixable. But if you just don’t “mesh” in bed, you just don’t. (not to take away from your opinion/choice on it, which I most definitely respect)

mrswho's avatar

@augustlan I figured that you just sort of picked it up easily. Doesn’t the internet have some tutorial or walk-though guide like a game? Just do some, check the walk-through, then continue. If it works for video games then it should work in bed. Right? That’s what I’m planning on.

Find a mushroom and get bigger, avoid ghosts, stomp turtles, and incorporate dinosaur things.

Facade's avatar

@westy81585 I guess I just can’t understand it because I haven’t experienced not “meshing” with someone sexually.

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@Facade Then you’re luckier than I am :) . It’s immensely weird.

May2689's avatar

@mrswho : Maybe this is going to sound weird, but watch Sex and the city season three… Charlotte’s marriage with Trey… theres an example why you should test drive the car before you buy it.

Qingu's avatar

@Facade, why on Earth do you care what your religion says about the morality of marriage?

Yes, the Bible says you should wait until you’re married to have sex. If you’re a girl. No penalty is given for men. By the way, do you know what happens to girls who cannot prove their virginity on their wedding night? They are stoned to death on the doorstep of their father’s house. (Deuteronomy 22.)

This only applies to women because women in the Bible were considered the property of their father, and then their husbands. A man is not the property of anyone (unless, of course, he’s a slave, which the Bible also condones). In fact, if you’re a man, you can even rape a virgin girl—as long as she’s not betrothed to anyone else (i.e. anyone else’s property). The punishment for raping an unbetrothed, virgin girl? Marriage. You have to pay her dad the brideprice, and you can’t divorce her. You break it, you buy it.

I suppose you don’t believe these barbaric laws still apply today. You probably think that Jesus somehow magically changed reality so you don’t have to follow these laws anymore. And you probably think the laws made sense in the Hebrew culture that created them. And of course, you’re right—the Hebrews, like other Mesopotamian cultures, believed women were property and so their laws treated them as such.

The question is, why do you pretend that your religion has any bearing you moral views on marriage when it obvious does not? Why do you cling to the “no sex before marriage” part of your religion while freely ignoring and dismissing the rest? It just seems intellectually dishonest to me.

Facade's avatar


FrankHebusSmith's avatar

Haha, I respect Facade’s decision on this. Obviously it’s not for me, but it is for her and I don’t think it my place to try and change her mind :) . That’s between her and whomever she chooses to involve in it.

Qingu's avatar

@Facade, bravo. An insightful and intelligent reply that doubtless reflects the amount of thought you’ve put into your moral beliefs.

Qingu's avatar

@westy81585, what is the point of debating a question like this if not to change people’s minds? Anyone can simply state their beliefs without being able to defend them.

I think it’s important to change people’s minds. People like Facade often vote based on issues like this. That affects everyone.

May2689's avatar

great answer qingu

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@Qingu Well agreed whats the point in debating. But if I’m not mistaken the poster didn’t ask us to debate it, just for our opinions. And hence I see no point in trying to changer hers.

Qingu's avatar

Another thing. Marriage is older than religion. In its earliest, most “traditional” form, marriage had nothing to do with romantic or intellectual love. It had nothing to do with a choice to commit (at least not the woman.) It was an economic contract. Women had little value as human beings in traditional societies because they could not work or fight. Their value came from the brideprice they could fetch for their fathers. You sold your daughter into marriage for a little bit higher of a price than you would sell her into slavery.

I believe strongly in committed relationships. Marriage is one way to “codify” commitment, but’s not the only way, and it originally had nothing to do with it. But regardless, whether or not two consenting adults want to have sex has nothing to do with commitment either. I wouldn’t have sex with someone I wasn’t committed to staying with, but I wouldn’t judge someone who would. Why would I?

essieness's avatar

Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive? I’m not much for taking chances…

Edit: I should’ve read the thread first and I would have seen that someone else used the car analogy…

Zen's avatar

Get engaged.

Then’s it fine.

Make it so.

Jack79's avatar

First of all, you have a good point about the values thing. Yes, I get my values from the societies in which I have lived (there have been several) and, even though my parents did have a big part in my way of thinking, my view of morality has changed over the years.

There is a biological rule that says “no sex before 13” and this is the only strict rule I’d impose. Any other rule is social (I’m not saying sex at 13 is ok, I’m just saying that I wouldn’t even consider it before that age).

Beyond that, you have
1) social norms, which in the society I currently live in say that it’s ok to have sex somewhere around 16. Though of course your parents would not be very happy if you were a girl. It’s ok for boys.
2) religious rules, which where I live are not as strict. Sure, there is the “no sex before marriage” rule, but it’s considered obsolete (I married a priest’s daughter and she had lost her virginity ages before she met me). I think people would just laugh if you said something like “let’s wait till we’re married”.
3) moral judgement, which to me is not just what the Church says. And here I’d add the most important rule of all: love. What I’d say to my own daughter when the time comes, is “be sure you’re making love to a man who deserves it, don’t just throw it away like that”. It’s fine to be in love and enjoy sexual intimacy with someone. It’s not fine to just be a slut.

This is just my own opinion of course, and I know of people who waited until marriage, or did their best to get rid of their virginity at the first school party they could.

EmpressPixie's avatar

I think that if two consenting adults want to have sex, they should. As long as they fully understand what they are entering into with each other and the consequences—whatever they may be.

Zen's avatar

Two consenting adults can play chess, too, but what if they don’t even know the names of the pieces, or how to play the game?

Facade's avatar

@Zen Isn’t there a chess handbook or something =P

Zen's avatar

@Facade There is, you get it when you get married.

aprilsimnel's avatar

@Zen – Even Grand Masters start as novices. They simply have to keep playing. And playing. And playing. And playing.

Zen's avatar

Anyone can learn the game of Chess. The rules are simple enough. To master it, and to become a Grand Master, is an entirely different ball game. Imho.

aprilsimnel's avatar

There’s no balls in chess!

AstroChuck's avatar

@aprilsimnel- What about the kings, the knights, and the bishops?

Zen's avatar

Ball game is a baseball idiom in English.

AstroChuck's avatar

@Zen- Not just baseball.

aprilsimnel's avatar

Hello! I am from Wisconsin. Before? I make joke. :D

AstroChuck's avatar

Wisconsin, Sussex?

aprilsimnel's avatar

M’waukee. I’ve heard of Sussex, though.

AstroChuck's avatar

M’waukee, Kent?

AstroChuck's avatar

N“ermind my humor. I’m just tired.

aprilsimnel's avatar

No! That’s how big Stephen Fry’s brain is, the size of Kent! And people are in M’waukee and Sussex and Kent having premarital sex right now!

MrKnowItAll's avatar

As long as it doesn’t hold up the Ceremony

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

There is something unbreakable about a couple who has the willpower to wait until marriage for sex. Not only do they have that willpower and that stability to survive such a waiting period.. they also have far fewer worries in the long run.. no emotional fallout from broken relationships that were perpetuated by sex.. no unexpected children… no worry of disease to bring to their marriage.. no worry of comparison.. if they only have sex with one person their whole lives.. think of how special that person is to them!

Of course such couples can break too.. but I wonder what the statistics are on such couples as compared to those who took sex less seriously.. just some fun thing to do.. it feels good right.. so why not do it? I would be very interested indeed in those stats.

That said.. people as whole seem to be easy to figure out.. but as individuals they are very enigmatic.. pinning down what’s best for one person won’t give you an answer for the next.

Qingu's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater, are you just making stuff up again?

Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.

Conservative Christians being the people who tend to frown upon sex before marriage.

I also don’t see what the possibility of divorce has to do with the morality of having sex before marriage. People should not feel trapped in a marriage that is not working for them—regardless of whether or not they’ve had sex with other people.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@Qingu “Please don’t bother responding with anything judgmental or rude to the other jellies who share their views on this personal issue.”

Have a nice day. =)

fundevogel's avatar

I waited I long time to get popped, by a guy I loved, who I think loved me….and it didn’t work out. A huge part of our problem was my inexperience. How much more would that sucked if we had been married? It would have sucked a lot. Statistically young people who wait until after marriage to have sex get married younger than their sexed up peers. Consequently they also tend to get divorced quicker than their sexed up peers.

Everyone one makes mistakes, best to learn from some before you raise the stakes too high. Including the intimate ones, especially the intimate ones.

casheroo's avatar

@Facade So, you continue to have sex with your boyfriend, because your sins will be forgiven by God? You even admitted in another thread that you don’t agree with what you’re doing…you judge others, but can freely have premarital sex?? Wow. No wonder I disregard every one of your posts.

To answer the original question, I don’t think anything of premarital sex. I like what @augustlan said, and think I might steal that for when my child is old enough to have a talk like that.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@NaturalMinteralWater: That was neither particularly rude nor judgmental. He took your unsubstantiated musings and showed you that there are studies that look at these things and that you are wrong. Your opinions are your own, but the conclusions you draw from them have the ability to be wrong.

classyfied's avatar

I just want to point out that those statistics aren’t necessarily what NaturalMineralWater was asking for. Yes, it says that the divorce rate is higher for conservative Christians, but how many of those actually waited until marriage? I’m an atheist, but my parents are not and used to make me go to church school so I have many really religious friends. Most of those have had premarital sex. Not to mention, I have met atheists who waited until marriage. Religion (or lack thereof) is not really the best indicator of who does or doesn’t practice premarital sex.

Mamradpivo's avatar

I think pre-marital sex is a lot of fun.

Qingu's avatar

@classyfied, that’s a good point. I’m having difficulty finding any hard stats for the more specific correlation between premarital sex and divorce rates.

But in any case, there’s no evidence for what NMW claimed as far as I can tell either. And I think it’s telling that a culture that, on the whole, disparages premarital sex has a higher divorce rate than one that does not. You are right to point out that many such Christians are hypocrites (e.g. Bristol Palin). But 95% of Americans have had premarital sex. I see no evidence that the 5% of Americans who have not are magically immune to divorce.

And even if they were, that wouldn’t necessarily be a good thing anyway. Traditional societies where girls are sold off to their husbands by their parents have low divorce rates. They’re economic arrangements and divorce is seen as bringing dishonor to the family. But if the couple in question doesn’t love each other—and especially if the husband is abusing the wife—then why shouldn’t they get divorced? Staying married is not necessarily a good thing, especially if it’s not a choice.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@Qingu: It’s a trap! You don’t want to look at happiness over time and love over time in arranged marriages. You won’t like what the studies have to show you. We like to think they’d be miserable because they are trapped in loveless marriages, but the studies show that’s just not true. Their relationship curves are moved to the right, timeline wise. Which means that while married, on average, they are happier longer. Of course, at this point I’m quoting a college textbook from about ten years ago. Things may have changed, with the internet, but we really can’t recreate that kind of longitudinal study quickly enough to account for it.

Qingu's avatar

@EmpressPixie, in traditional marriages, the couple has little choice but to learn to live with together, because they have no other options. It’s a gilded cage.

casheroo's avatar

as long as they’re married, they’re happy, duh~

EmpressPixie's avatar

@Qingu: That doesn’t mean they have to respond to surveys as being happy. Or that psychological evaluations would report, “Oh yes, this couple seems very in love still.” I mean, I agree they have more incentive to work at their marriage in some ways, but you cannot completely discount their happiness because it comes in an odd form.

crisw's avatar


Check out this study -
“Premarital sex and cohabitation, if limited to the future husband, do not increase
the risk of divorce for women, according to new research by Jay Teachman, sociologist,
at Western Washington University. ”

Qingu's avatar

I am suspicious of happiness when it comes at the expense of choice.

fireside's avatar

My dad used to say, “Why don’t you get married and suffer like the rest of us!”

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

This whole debate presupposes that people SHOULD get married, which is nothing but a way to organize society and it’s, like religion, a nice way to ensure the ‘normal’ way to do things but let’s remember that, in reality, marriage (religious, civil, or otherwise) is not right for everyone and that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or right, but it means it’s just an option..since we can not see the future for every human, asking them about pre-marital sex is kind of pointless as not everyone will get married and plenty will get re-married or divorced…what would we then say to someone who never wants to get married in the first place? do they not get a say in this ‘pre-marital sex’ or for them will it be ‘the one long term relationship’? what if they won’t have just 1 relationship…the issue goes further, because it also presupposes that people have to find the ONE and stay with them for life or otherwise there’s something immoral about them…but in all actuality there’s NOTHING wrong with not mating for life, there’s NOTHING wrong with pre-marital sex and it has NOTHING to do with morality…connecting monogamy and marriage to morality is an arrogant attempt by societal institutions to connect the dots where no line should be drawn…as my pediatrician always says ‘religion matters little: its whether you’ve got good character ‘cause God knows one can be religious and be a rotten human being’, back to the question at hand…since there’s no connection other than a forced one between pre-marital sex and morality, there should be no value placed on not having pre-marital sex or having it…this is not something you should connect to values because, yet again, you can be an immoral person waiting for sex or a moral person having it…I didn’t grow up in a religious household and although my parents were strict, they were under no illusion that their children would not have sex and therefore, I wasn’t shamed for doing it and never associated with negativity…so I always led a happy and fulfilling sex life, no matter if I was in love or not…as many above have said, sex is an important part of a relationship and I wouldn’t want to not experience that part prior to making a big decision about who I’d marry…after all, if marriage is such a big deal, you have to enter it wisely, not blindly, no matter how special you think that might be, you’ve got one life and you better not screw it up…because it seems to me that a society that doesn’t allow for premarital sex will also not allow for divorces…god forbid, you’d want to end something that isn’t working for you…

Facade's avatar

@casheroo I’m not “judging” anyone. I simply stated my beliefs. Since you have no idea what I am currently doing my boyfriend, you’re out of line.

hitomi's avatar

I am actually facing a problem with this debate because I have always said that I would wait until I am married or at least engaged, but in recent years I have stopped believing in marriage so much….which places me in a predicament.

Qingu's avatar

@Facade, any idiot can state their beliefs. Watch:

I believe I am Napolean Bonaparte.

Can you actually defend your beliefs? Are your beliefs consistent with your behavior or your moral philosophy? If not, why even bother stating them?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

i don’t see that as a predicament
i see that as a change in perspective
and that’s perfectly normal
thank god for growth

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

did you know that you weren’t actually short, the measurements used were different, you were actually of average height for that time in France? :0~

fireside's avatar

@Qingu – the question didn’t state “can you defend your beliefs on pre-marital sex”
Any idiot can be a bully and call people names : )

It’s okay if some people haven’t thought through their beliefs, you could gently nudge them to without using a cattle prod.

hitomi's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Except that I still don’t believe in casual sex and still have issues dealing with the idea of having sex with someone that I’m not committed to (and can guarantee that they are committed to me as well), but I really don’t want to go through life and NEVER have sex… is hard to deal with and resolve internally in an effort to decide what to do….

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

what to do? live, risk, love
have sex and dont feel guilty
you re an adult
no one’s judging you
they shouldnt anyway
and you shouldnt either

aviona's avatar

It’s not premarital if you don’t plan on getting married ;)

AstroChuck's avatar

@aviona- Now where did I hear that before?

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

@AstroChuck I think there is an echo in here.

aviona's avatar

Sorry, I didn’t read well enough. :/

AstroChuck's avatar

You’d better be! ;)

I’m very territorial, you know.

casheroo's avatar

@Facade Well, since I do know that you and your boyfriend are having premarital sex, because you admitted to it in this thread about sex during menstration I have a right to call you a hypocrite.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@classyfied Thanks for pointing that out. I tend to assume things as obvious that maybe aren’t.

ShauneP82's avatar

I personally think it is wrong. However, I did cave about 6 months before I married my wife. I knew I wanted to marry her though. Still, that is no excuse. : )

Qingu's avatar

@ShauneP82, why do you think it’s wrong?

ShauneP82's avatar

@Qingu Simply: I am a Christian and my God forbids it. lol.

Personally: I wanted to have a special experience with the one and only person I care to spend the rest of my life with.

crisw's avatar

Where, exactly, does the Bible forbid premarital sex for men?

Qingu's avatar

Doesn’t your God also forbid wearing polyester and working on the Sabbath?

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

Does he really forbid polyester? That ones new on me, lol.

Qingu's avatar

No mixed fibers, man. Read your Bible!

cookieman's avatar

I hate when my fibers mix. It’s just so…so…unatural.

fireside's avatar

Honestly, no polyester seems like divine foresight to avoid things like this

FrankHebusSmith's avatar

@fireside That link may have just made me a hardcore religions nut….

AstroChuck's avatar

Judas is my co-pilot.

fundevogel's avatar

It’s also a sin to have any physical contact with a woman that is menstruating. Better ask up front rather than risking it boys.

ShauneP82's avatar

@crisw According to some who study the bible, premarital sex is, they say, a sin no matter what the circumstances. It is disrespectful to your body, which according to christian teachings is meant to be god’s temple.

Others say the bible doesn’t address the question of premarital sex at all, but does insist that sex is meant only for marriage, again citing disrespect for god’s temple as the reason for abstinence.

1 Cor. 6:16
“Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is
one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.”

Therefore, if we follow God’s plan, we reserve our sexual activity for
our husband or our wife.”

(I would recommend you read the entire book to understand the full context of the words that are being read.)


As far as polyester goes. I have no idea and really don’t care. I don’t wear it all the often anyway. lol. However, in terms of working on the sabbath for a jew yes it is very strict with rules. In terms of a christian sabbath, it forbids creative work. That is in observance for the creation of the world and the universe made by God.

I hope that answered your questions. see ya : P

ShauneP82's avatar

To answer the rest of the wonders of the bible in what it says we can and can not do; guys what we are to know is that we are all sinners and Christ died for any and every sin we have ever done or will ever do. Thats the most important info to know.

Going back to premarital sex, I think its wrong, just because. Good discourse ladies and gentlemen : D

aprilsimnel's avatar

Everyone isn’t a Christian, nor wants to be. Everyone doesn’t get married.

If you’re a consenting adult with another consenting adult, and you’re not interfering in an already established relationship, you are free to make sexual choices provided you’re willing to take responsibility for the outcomes of those choices.

ShauneP82's avatar

@aprilsimnel I agree 100%. There are outcomes to every choice.

Qingu's avatar

Well that sounds like a threat.

Such a loving religion you believe in.

ShauneP82's avatar

@Qingu Dang dude, you sound so pissed. Lets hug and make it all better. :D

Qingu's avatar

Hm. I’d like to make sure you have no desire to follow your God’s commandments before we hug. After all, Deuteronomy 13:6 orders you to kill me “without mercy.” :)

ShauneP82's avatar

@Qingu I think you need to quit worrying about what Deuteronomy 13:6 says. Showing mercy to those who deserve none is great a privilege that I will exercise. If I recieve punishment from my God for obeying his greatest commandment then I will assume it is justified. I have a lot of evil in my heart already. You, my friend, would be nothing if I were to kill you. But…I choose not to. ; )

Qingu's avatar

I shouldn’t worry about what Dt. 13:6 says… but I should worry about Gen. 2:24 says?

I assume you have some reason for picking and choosing that doesn’t involve ignoring Bible passages you personally find distasteful?

ShauneP82's avatar

@Qingu Eh, I do what my heart says is write and wrong. The Lord lives in my heart not in the Bible.

SeventhSense's avatar

Please take the time to reread and correct grammar, syntax and spelling errors before you press the answer button. You would do well to take a remedial writing class before any further theology studies.

ShauneP82's avatar

@SeventhSense thanks for the tip. I am not righting an acadeamic studi at thu moment. So I yam notu worreed aboot it. ; )

SeventhSense's avatar

It’s a consideration of others. No one should have to wrestle to understand you.

MooKoo's avatar

I think it’s a major problem, and shouldn’t be practiced.

asmonet's avatar

Not everyone believes in marriage or sees it as a necessary step @MooKoo.

MooKoo's avatar

@asmonet I know, but it provides a strong base and provides a way for society to be a better place to live in. Also, the joy that can come from being in a family is far greater than the joy of a sexual relationship.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@MooKoo it doesn’t always provide a strong base, that’s not an inevitability

MooKoo's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir As long as you treat it, like it should be treated, there is always an extremely good chance.

justus2's avatar

@MooKoo Who said you cannot experience the joys of a family without being married, and why you be in a family at the same time having a sexual relationship with your boyfriend or girlfriend? I live with my boyfriend and my dad, and they are both my family

lady4life's avatar

Of course it is different for each individual..i commend anyone who waits..that is beautiful but on the other hand I don’t think people should judge or criticize people who don’t is a personal choice..both should be respected

juwhite1's avatar

I’d never marry someone without having sex with them first… sex is an important part of a happy, healthy relationship, and I’d personally like a test drive to see what I’m buying before I sign on the dotted line!

mellamashermosa's avatar

You see, there is a problem with EVERYONE’s Answer on here. I hear mainly this, “I WOULD NEVER MARRY SOMEONE BEFORE I FIND OUT…about the SEX”. Friends, please tell me why LOVE is so CONDITIONAL?! Wow, I think it is sooo great that no one has explored the idea (religious or not), that SEX should NOT define love! This world is so molded around sex that true love is cast aside and no one understands what it really is. Why all of these requirements on something that is suppose to be from the heart? I agree with Facade, and I think too many people have aimed comments at her for a lack of understanding themselves. Not only has premarital sex left wounds for some people but it has left scars. Have any of you watched these television shows that point to the fact that it does not pay to Give the Milk for Free? Just think, sexually transmitted diseases are CHIEFLY from a lack of what? discretion, and a desire to fulfill LUST of the FLESH. Does it not leave people scarred? What about the fact that there are so many women running around having babies that have no father, E.G. MYSELF! Does that not leave scars? What about the number of infidelities, although it happens even amongst the married, does it NOT happen the most with the unwed? I could go on and on but time would fail me to explain the horrendous thought of one who solely could see themselves with someone if they gave “good sex”, I mean I could not image my husband saying to me, “you know, I knew you were the ‘one’ for me when I had sex with you. You did it so well that it was the confirmation”, think about that. So No, I dont just make my decision based on religion, although the Bible has AWESOME counsel, and saves you from an ABUNDANT amount of woes in life, but I make my decision based on the cause and effect/ or wounds and scars/ the potential effect of today’s decision. Sorry, I studies sociology and psychology long enough to know that love is not defined by how you are in bed. It goes MUCH deeper and if one cant see much deeper, you need to redefine what you call love :-)

EmpressPixie's avatar

@mellamashermosa: Frankly, sex doesn’t have to have anything to do with love at all. And that’s fine for some people. For others, that’s not fine. Thus, two consenting adults. Also, STDs are chiefly from abstinence only education which doesn’t teach people about being safe while having sex.

Also, the bible has just as much—if not more—terrible counsel. There’s rather a lot about who to kill and when to kill them.

People aren’t saying that you have to have sex to know you want to be with someone forever. People are saying that they want to know that they mesh well with someone in all the ways that are important for a relationship in their view before they enter into a legal contract binding them together legally, financially, and emotionally.

juwhite1's avatar

Sex and love are intertwined… Certainly, you can have sex without being in love, and be in love without having sex. But frankly, making love with my husband is a deeply emotional, and even spiritual connection that I wouldn’t want to go through life without. That said, if something happened and he was no longer able to have sex with me, I’d still be here and would not cheat on him over it, and would still be in love and fulfilled. But, if we didn’t connect well physically, and I was stuck with an awkward, fumbling sex life, that would lead to frustrations that would certainly eventually spill over into other areas of our marriage, for both of us. Those who deny that sex is an important part of a relationship really do baffle me. Those who imply that because I feel sex is an important part of a relationship means that I am shallow just plain piss me off.

mellamashermosa's avatar

EmpressPixie: I have a few words as far as the Bible is concerned because pound for pound there is NO better counsel book. First off, do you understand Biblical Hermeneutics? if you did then you would perhaps reconsider saying something against something that you absolutely do not understand…you know, Time, Place, Circumstance, Principle/ Policy? Unless you can rationally explain this, then as far as your comment with the Bible is concerned I have absolutely nothing to say on that. I am not like many Christians who do not understand the Bible and are just following the “tradition of their fore-fathers” I absolutely study. I study history, Bible and the one thing that MOST dont understand HERMENEUTICS.

Next, I am absolutely not down playing the importance of sex. My husband and I have an awesome one. In fact, prior to us being married he was in a pre-marital sex situation and he has let me know his stance on it now, and he said that the women he use to do that with he did not think much of, nor did he think it was anything special. He is absolutely astounded that we can share in something so pure and beautiful being married…

However,(back on subject), for people to be on here bashing a conscious decision and watering down the effects and consequences of stuff is way out of line and beyond believable. We have such an immoral society because sex is everything, so I refuse to make it of such importance that we fail to emphasize that love is the CHIEF important thing. It is not merely “sex between two consenting individuals”, we need to rise above the “base” passions and lusts and realize that sex is between two consenting, in love individuals who believe that the other person is for them and they want to share in each others world. And for that cause, you are driven to marry that person because you want to share in not just “sex” but making “love”, continuing.

Another thing, I will not get on the school thing with you because I do not agree with how abstinence education is taught in schools so I don’t even know where you got that from. Our school systems are a mess right now and I did not once hint at agreeing with their way of doing things.

And btw, in no means do I mean to offend any class, but I am simply expressing my views on this subject with the strictest love…I am not anti anyone :-)

Qingu's avatar

(oops, double-poast)

Qingu's avatar

@mellamashermosa, I agree with you. Truly the Bible is the best moral guidebook there is—as you obviously understand with your wise use of the term hermeneutics.

I especially like the Bible’s counsel for pre-marital rape victims in Deuteronomy 22:28. According to this passage, if a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father a brideprice and then must marry her without divorce. I’m sure, as a fan of hermeneutics, you get the meaning of this passage: you break it, you buy it. (I’m guessing that’s what you meant when you said “it is not merely sex between two consenting individuals” ... you only need one consenting individual!)

Though I’m a bit confused. Surely you’re not arguing that pre-marital sex is wrong in every case? As the above example makes clear, the Bible is fine with pre-marital sex, as long as the woman is not another man’s wife at the time. The Bible also allows you to have sex with your slaves, outside of marriage (well, assuming “you” are a man.) Many Biblical figures had concubines, and even had children with their concubines!

Maybe my confusion is because you’re only talking about women in your post. After all, the Bible makes clear that while men can have sex before they get married, a woman better not—because if she’s not found to be a virgin on her wedding night, she gets stoned to death on the doorstep of her father’s house! (Deuteronomy 22:20).

But you’re absolutely right that we have “such an immoral society” today. I sure do yearn for the days back in ancient Mesopotamia when women were treated as property and could be legally raped, just like the Good Book says they should be!

Qingu's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir in light of what I just wrote, I’m not sure how to interpret that request. :(

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Qingu no, marry me in my reality, not the biblical one..I really like your humor

EmpressPixie's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: I already called dibs.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@EmpressPixie by all means, then, I wish you both the best of luck, :)

mellamashermosa's avatar

First off:

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 ESV

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

That Bible text makes it CLEAR THAT GOD did not stand for ANYTHING immoral in the Bible. Therefore, since the Bible says that, we must know how God feels about sexual things that are immoral.

So the next thing that would leave us saying is that the Bible is inconsistent on this specific instance because here it is saying that immorality is wrong but here in Deuteronomy it is saying it is right. Now, since I know that the Bible is NOT inconsistent but humans are I will first tell you this:

#1— Pay attention to the hermeneutical laws….yes hermeneutics.
#2— Pay attention to time, place, circumstance, principle/policy (if you forget hermeneutics)
#3— Pay attention to the problem and the SOCIETY that the Bible is referencing
#4— Look at it in the Hebrew and compare SCRIPTURE with SCRIPTURE is how you interpret the Bible…

Now : Deut. 22:

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

Verse TWENTY FIVE and TWENTY SIX and TWENTY SEVEN here OBVIOUSLY says that if a man lies with a ENGAGED lady by force, or if he causes her to lie with him, his punishment is DEATH. She shall be charged nothing because it is not her fault. She cried out, he caused, or forced the event and no one could save her…it was OBVIOUSLY not of her doing and so she is fine…at least her husband-to-be knows that it was NONE of her fault in their C.U.L.T.U.R.E.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and THEY be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Here, we see two things. #1— This one takes on a DIFFERENT context and it seems NOT the SAME situation. In this one (a) the damsel is NOT engaged (b) She did NOT cry out© the Bible says AND “THEY” be found…now my question for you is this…why did NOT the last 25–27 say AND THEY BE FOUND….and why did the first lady CRY OUT….there is a BIG difference. The second lady OBVIOUSLY did SOMETHING for she did not cry out and why would “They” have to be “found out”??? Something fishy is going on, and looking at the Hebrew translation…she definitely was up to no good herself unlike the first lady, so the for that time the CULTURE suggest that for this lady, since it could not be proven either way, the best solution was for her to be married to the man, and he to pay for what “THEY” were “found out” for.

Also, this was a traditional practice in those primitive cultures, where the sexual misconduct of women didn’t only bring individual condemnation, but FAMILY shame and dishonor…

Lastly, if you pay attention to this society, after this act, it is unlikely that anyone will want to marry the damsel because she is no longer a virgin. This could cause all sorts of issues for her in this society, because she will (a) have no one to provide for her later in life, and (b) no real future. (c) This being known would most-likely increase her victimization. Practically speaking, the offending man is more use alive than dead when thinking about her future. He is allowed to live in order that he might make lifelong amends to the damsel and the family of the damsel.
Basically, these laws were set up to solve the problem created by the rape and sexual misconduct. Not to say that rape is okay as there are numerous scripture referencing that God does NOT think sexual misconduct or rape is okay.

Also, please remember to always give way to translation error. The Bible is so old with sooo much to translate from hebrew/greek tongue that you can do a lot of misleading by READING something INTO a verse of scripture that is NOT there. Thank you for that.

Also, it might do you well to remember that, in the Bible, there are a lot of things that SEEM one way or the other, but I would encourage you to study history, culture, hebrew, greek, etc. so you can get a proper view and also realize that God NEVER hides his peoples mistakes, all through the Bible you see the mistakes of people of God…praise the Lord for that…at least I know he does not cover up sin….

Other than that, we have gotten off task and I prefer to stay on subject and not be sarcastic.

Thank you :)

p.s.: A text without its proper context is a PRETEXT.

SeventhSense's avatar

Yes @Qingu‘s pseudo intellectual deeply prejudicial reading of ancient texts is so refreshing. Of course neither modern day Christians nor Jews hold these laws of the Torah as Gospel. But thank God we have people like him to point this all out to the ignorant masses. ~_~

juwhite1's avatar

@mellamashermosa – All that translation and differing desires among those who do the translating for various outcomes lead me to question how you are positive that your interpretation of the translation you have chosen is the correct one.

mellamashermosa's avatar

juwhite1— did you study my response? Idk how i came up with it…perhaps by reading the context of the Bible and understanding the times…

juwhite1's avatar

We are going to just have to agree to disagree on this one… I don’t think either of us are probably fully considering the points of the other.

mellamashermosa's avatar

Deuteronomy 22:28–29 (New Living Translation)

28 “Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver.[a] Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives.


1. Deuteronomy 22:29 Hebrew 50 shekels of silver, about 1.25 pounds or 570 grams in weight.

look at the Hebrew word for that “rape” word…it was mistranslated…

Deut. 22:28 uses the expression “and they be found / discovered” which indicates that the verse is a reference to consensual premarital sex.

Which is consistent with the use of the word “taphas” in hebrew denoting a seduction, a catching, not rape.

Okay though…you are right, I will refuse to argue the point, but I know I did study this IN DEPTH. Thanks :-)

P.s. Reading the Bible and looking all over the net for answers is not enough…one must understand the culture, study the times, and the thought of the Hebrew people.
Other than that, we will have a lot of ethical dilemmas and political/ theological debates over something otherwise small.

Qingu's avatar

@mellamashermosa, a couple of points.

1. You said, “Basically, these laws were set up to solve the problem created by the rape and sexual misconduct. Not to say that rape is okay as there are numerous scripture referencing that God does NOT think sexual misconduct or rape is okay.”

I challenge you to find a single place in the Bible where rape, itself, is punished. Or a passage where God says a woman must consent to sex before it is legal.

(Note that in the laws in Deuteronomy 22, rape is not punished when the offenders are killed—adultery is. The married woman who does not cry out in the city when she is raped is killed along with the man because she is assumed to be complicitous in the adultery.)

2. You seem to be saying that condoning rape is inconsistent with God’s sexual morality. As above, you have yet to show that non-consentual sex is immoral in the Bible. As I said, men were allowed to have sex with their slaves and war-captives. No consent is required. In Numbers 31, Moses, invoking God, commands his troops to take the young virgin girls of a conquered city for themselves as “booty.”

If the Bible does not say rape is bad, why do you, a flawed human, think it’s immoral?

3. I agree that these laws should be interpreted in the context of the ancient near eastern culture, where women were understood to be property of men and you could legally buy slaves and force them to have sex. So again, I’m curious as to what you’re arguing. Are you saying God’s laws only apply to ANE culture and would be immoral if they were followed today? I thought the Bible was supposed to be perfect.

Maybe I should put this another way: if I were to rape an unbetrothed virgin girl today, in America, what do you think the ideal punishment should be? Should I be forced to simply pay her father the brideprice and marry her? Or would enacting that law be immoral today? I’d appreciate a direct answer to this question.

4. Please stop using the KJV. It’s hard to take your harping about translation issues seriously when you’re quoting from a particularly archaic translation. Most modern translations do say or strongly imply nonconsentual sex. (My NRSV translation says “seizes and lies with”)

By the way. I have studied Biblical interpretation and ANE culture. And throwing around words like “hermeneutics” doesn’t impress me. Neither do words like “soteriology” or “eschatology.” Just sayin’.

mellamashermosa's avatar

Quiqu…I do not think you read over my response carefully. You did NOT read my supporting scriptures, you did NOT read the verse where the guy who raped was sentenced to death and YOU did NOT read where I used the NLT Bible which is pretty accurate with the Hebrew in this circumstance. ALSO, you tell me you studied Biblical interpretation and ANE Culture, but you never told me you studied the Hebrew. Please go to school for that and then we shall continue this rather POINTLESS argument seeing how you obviously are poking holes in something that is rather full proof.

I dont understand why you are so off topic anyway….why are you sticking on the subject of rape, when we were talking about premarital sex. Makes me wonder why your mind is staying on something rather trivial because I have solved it as far as I am concerned. Sorry that I wont be another one of your empty brains that agree with you just because you SOUND good although you have no history to back your claims.

And lastly, if my “hermeneutics” DON’T impress you, then please apply them to your argument. Thank you.

Qingu's avatar


Actually I did read your supporting verses. The guy who rapes a married woman is indeed sentenced to death (and if she doesn’t scream in a city, so is she.)

Can you tell me what the punishment is for someone who has consentual sex with a married woman is? Also death. (see Dt. 22:22)

The crime being punished in Dt. 22:23–37 is adultery, not rape. Rape only enters into it as a means of establishing whether the woman should die as well, i.e. if she is complicitous in the adultery or not.

I’m still waiting for you to cite a law where rape is punished, or where God says a woman must consent to sex.

Re: knowing Hebrew, are you saying a fluency in ancient Hebrew is required to discuss the Bible? Are you fluent in ancient Hebrew? You seem comfortable discussing the Bible.

And I’d still like an answer to my question. In your ideal society, if someone rapes an unbetrothed virgin, what should their punishment be, if any? That is quite on topic, as it’s pre-marital sex. And I wasn’t aware that you “solved” this “trivial” issue.

mellamashermosa's avatar

Your answer for Numbers is found in a awesome read that you do well to explain sense you are a ANE culture student:

Now I want to look at this episode in Numbers 31. The goodness and severity of God is always a troubling issue, even for the Christian (Rom 11:22). While most Christians know the goodness of God when they became Christians, the later discovery of the severity of God can come as a shock.

There are a number of questions here:

* Did God order the killing of the boys?
* Were the Midianite virgins taken as sexual plunder to be used as “slave-whores”
* Was the killing of the Midianite women unjustified

As we shall see the answer is no to all three.

First the background info to the Numbers 31 incident.

The Midianites where half brothers to the Israelites for they descended from Midian son of Keturah Abraham’s second wife (Gen 25:1–4). Moses lived in Midian for forty years and married a daughter of Midianite priest Jethro (Exo 2:15ff). Later after the exodus from Egypt Jethro visited Moses in the desert and advises Moses to delegate responsibility for judging disputes (Exo 18:1ff). Jethro and Moses got along well and Jethro was pleased to hear about all the good things that the Lord had done for Israel.

(Exo 18:9–12 NIV) Jethro was delighted to hear about all the good things the LORD had done for Israel in rescuing them from the hand of the Egyptians. {10} He said, “Praise be to the LORD, who rescued you from the hand of the Egyptians and of Pharaoh, and who rescued the people from the hand of the Egyptians. {11} Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly.” {12} Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and other sacrifices to God, and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of God.

Moses asks Jethro’s son to be their guide in the desert and offers to share the good things that God does (Num 10:29–32). Up to now everything is going well between the Israelites and the Midianites. The Israelites were no threat to the Midianites as they just wanted to pass through the land (Num 21:22).

What went wrong?

We get the start of the answer in Num 22:4

The leaders of the Midianites join with the Moabites to pay Balaam to curse God’s people.

(Num 22:4–7 NIV) The Moabites said to the elders of Midian, “This horde is going to lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field.” So Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, {5} sent messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor, near the River, in his native land. Balak said: “A people has come out of Egypt; they cover the face of the land and have settled next to me. {6} Now come and put a curse on these people, because they are too powerful for me. Perhaps then I will be able to defeat them and drive them out of the country. For I know that those you bless are blessed, and those you curse are cursed.” {7} The elders of Moab and Midian left, taking with them the fee for divination. When they came to Balaam, they told him what Balak had said.

Further we learn in Josh 13:21 that the Midianite chiefs were princes, who had allied themselves with the Amorites, who had fought with Israel earlier and were defeated (Num 21:21). The Israelites were no threat to the Midianites since they were only passing through. The real threat was to the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (Exo 3:8). However the Midianites had joined themselves to the Amorites who had good reason to fear God, the Israelites had already defeated Sihon king of the Amorites, the Midianites were stupid enough to join themselves to the (already) defeated Amorites.

(Josh 13:21 NIV)—all the towns on the plateau and the entire realm of Sihon king of the Amorites, who ruled at Heshbon. Moses had defeated him and the Midianite chiefs, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—princes allied with Sihon—who lived in that country.

(Num 21:21–23 NIV) Israel sent messengers to say to Sihon king of the Amorites: {22} “Let us pass through your country. We will not turn aside into any field or vineyard, or drink water from any well. We will travel along the king’s highway until we have passed through your territory.” {23} But Sihon would not let Israel pass through his territory. He mustered his entire army and marched out into the desert against Israel. When he reached Jahaz, he fought with Israel.

Four times Balak, king of Moab, tries to pay Balaam to curse Israel but four times Balaam pronounced a blessing.

Num 22:12 But God said to Balaam, “Do not go with them. You must not put a curse on those people, because they are blessed.”

(Num 23:7–10 NIV) Then Balaam uttered his oracle: “Balak brought me from Aram, the king of Moab from the eastern mountains. ‘Come,’ he said, ‘curse Jacob for me; come, denounce Israel.’ {8} How can I curse those whom God has not cursed? How can I denounce those whom the LORD has not denounced? {9} From the rocky peaks I see them, from the heights I view them. I see a people who live apart and do not consider themselves one of the nations. {10} Who can count the dust of Jacob or number the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, and may my end be like theirs!”

(Num 23:18–24 NIV) Then he uttered his oracle: “Arise, Balak, and listen; hear me, son of Zippor. {19} God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? {20} I have received a command to bless; he has blessed, and I cannot change it. {21} “No misfortune is seen in Jacob, no misery observed in Israel. The LORD their God is with them; the shout of the King is among them. {22} God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox. {23} There is no sorcery against Jacob, no divination against Israel. It will now be said of Jacob and of Israel, ‘See what God has done!’ {24} The people rise like a lioness; they rouse themselves like a lion that does not rest till he devours his prey and drinks the blood of his victims.”

(Num 24:2–9 NIV) When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God came upon him {3} and he uttered his oracle: “The oracle of Balaam son of Beor, the oracle of one whose eye sees clearly, {4} the oracle of one who hears the words of God, who sees a vision from the Almighty, who falls prostrate, and whose eyes are opened: {5} “How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel! {6} “Like valleys they spread out, like gardens beside a river, like aloes planted by the LORD, like cedars beside the waters. {7} Water will flow from their buckets; their seed will have abundant water. “Their king will be greater than Agag; their kingdom will be exalted. {8} “God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox. They devour hostile nations and break their bones in pieces; with their arrows they pierce them. {9} Like a lion they crouch and lie down, like a lioness—who dares to rouse them? “May those who bless you be blessed and those who curse you be cursed!”

The story ends up with Balak and Balaam going their own separate ways, but do they?

(Num 24:25 NIV) Then Balaam got up and returned home and Balak went his own way.

The Baal Peor incident:

Just as in the golden calf incident (Exo 32:35) the Lord judged his people with plague when they indulged in sexual immorality and became idolatrous. It is evident from verses 6 and 15 that a high ranking Midianite woman was also involved in this affair (Cozbi daughter of Zur, a tribal chief). What is significant about this incident is that 40 years earlier, as they came out of Egypt, the people bowed down to the golden calf. Here we find their children, 40 years later, just as they are about to enter the promised land, bowing down to foreign gods.

(Num 25 NIV) While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, {2} who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate and bowed down before these gods. {3} So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them. {4} The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.” {5} So Moses said to Israel’s judges, “Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor.” {6} Then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. {7} When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand {8} and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; {9} but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000. {10} The LORD said to Moses, {11} “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them. {12} Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. {13} He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites.” {14} The name of the Israelite who was killed with the Midianite woman was Zimri son of Salu, the leader of a Simeonite family. {15} And the name of the Midianite woman who was put to death was Cozbi daughter of Zur, a tribal chief of a Midianite family.

This was a major event in the life of Israel as the following verses show.

(Deu 4:2–4 NIV) Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. {3} You saw with your own eyes what the LORD did at Baal Peor. The LORD your God destroyed from among you everyone who followed the Baal of Peor, {4} but all of you who held fast to the LORD your God are still alive today.

Josh 22:17 Was not the sin of Peor enough for us? Up to this very day we have not cleansed ourselves from that sin, even though a plague fell on the community of the LORD!

(Psa 106:28–31 NIV) They yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor and ate sacrifices offered to lifeless gods; {29} they provoked the LORD to anger by their wicked deeds, and a plague broke out among them. {30} But Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was checked. {31} This was credited to him as righteousness for endless generations to come.

(Hosea 9:10 NIV) “When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree. But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved.

The NT comment on this is also rather interesting (Rev 2:14). Even though God had promised blessings to His people through Balaam, Balaam knew that if God’s people sinned then God would have to judge them. Thus Balaam taught Balak to entice (seduce) the people into idolatry and sexual immorality. 2 Pet 2:15 comments that Balaam loved the wages of wickedness. The point is that Balaam was offered money by Balak to put a curse on God’s people, he saw that God would only bless his people, but he loved money so much that he taught Balak how to get God’s people to sin by enticing them with the Midianite women, then God would have to judge his people. It is significant that Balaam was listed along with the five kings of Midian as being killed (Num 31:8 ).

(Rev 2:14 NIV) Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality.

The bible is clear that judgement begins with God’s own people (1 Pet 4:17), but woe to those who cause the sin in the first place (Mat 18:7).

The EBC comments on this incident are enlightening:

So we now come to the ultimate rebellion of Israel in the desert. The time is the end of the forty-year period of their desert experience. The place is the staging area for the conquest of the land of Canaan. The issue is that of apostasy from the Lord by participation in the debased, sexually centered Canaanite religious rites of Baal worship—that which would become the bane of Israel’s experience in the land. This chapter is an end and a beginning. It marks the end of the first generation; it also points to the beginning of a whole new series of wicked acts that will finally lead to Israel’s punishment (see comments on 33:50–56). All the rebellions up to this point described in the Book of Numbers have centered in murmurings against the Lord and against his servants Moses and Aaron. The people have provoked the anger of the Lord by grumbling about water and food and by refusing to believe that he was able to deliver on his promise to bring them into the land of Canaan. But this chapter is unique in the record of the experience of Israel in their move from Sinai to Moab—it describes their involvement in the worship of another deity.

In a sense this chapter matches the grim account of Israel’s involvement in the pagan rites of the worship of the golden calf at the base of Sinai (Exod 32). The apostasy of Israel in their flagrant worship of the golden calf points back to Egypt. The golden calf was a symbol of the Egyptian bull-god Apis, likely referred to in Jeremiah 46:15 (see EBC, 6:652). Apis was the sacred bull in Egypt, the incarnation of Osiris, the principal deity of Egypt. Exodus 32:6 reads, “So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” The verb translated “to indulge in revelry” (lesaheq Piel infinitive construct of sahaq; meaning “to laugh” in the Qal—the word that forms the base for the name “Isaac”) sometimes speaks of sexual involvement. It is a euphemism for “caressing” in sexual play (as in Gen 26:8). So in this chapter Israel engages in sexual acts of the worship of a god of Canaan.

So bad was the rebellion of the people in worshipping Baal, that God ordered the Israelite leaders to be killed and their bodies to be displayed as a warning to the survivors. They had broken the covenant with the Lord, they had violated the second and seventh commandments.

(Deu 5:9–10 NIV) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, {10} but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

(Deu 5:18 NIV) “You shall not commit adultery.

This required the death penalty, they were well aware of the Law which had been given 40 years earlier. They were the generation of children who had to wander through the desert for forty years because their fathers refused to enter the promised land.

(Num 14:33–35 NIV) Your children will be shepherds here for forty years, suffering for your unfaithfulness, until the last of your bodies lies in the desert. {34} For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.’ {35} I, the LORD, have spoken, and I will surely do these things to this whole wicked community, which has banded together against me. They will meet their end in this desert; here they will die.”

Now they were repeating the “golden calf” incident 40 years earlier, just as they were about to enter the promised land.

(Deu 17:2–5 NIV) If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, {3} and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, {4} and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, {5} take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.

(Deu 8:18–20 NIV) But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today. {19} If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. {20} Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God.

(Deu 29:24–26 NIV) All the nations will ask: “Why has the LORD done this to this land? Why this fierce, burning anger?” {25} And the answer will be: “It is because this people abandoned the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, the covenant he made with them when he brought them out of Egypt. {26} They went off and worshiped other gods and bowed down to them, gods they did not know, gods he had not given them.

As the people were weeping in front of the tent of the meeting, because of God’s judgement upon them, an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel. Showing contempt for the holy things and the word of the Lord. We are also told that the name of the Midianite woman was Cozbi daughter of Zur, a tribal chief of a Midianite family (v15) she was from a high ranking family, possibly a priestess. Moses words in 31:15–16 would indicate that not just one woman was involved but the whole community of women.

(Num 31:15–16 NIV) “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. {16} “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people.

The Lord tells Moses to treat the Midianites as enemies:

Because of this incident the Lord told Moses to treat the Midianites as enemies and to kill them because they had treated the Israelites as enemies (Num 25:16). The Midianites brought God’s judgment upon themselves because of what they did. They deceived God’s people into sexual immorality and idolatry. They should have known better, they had previously had good relations with the Israelites, they were related, they had seen how God got them out of Egypt, they knew of God’s intention to bless Israel. Yet they joined themselves to the enemies of the Israelites.

{Num 25:16} The LORD said to Moses, {17} “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, {18} because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.”

Further in Num 31:1 God tells Moses to take vengeance on the Midianites.

(Num 31:1–4 NIV) The LORD said to Moses, {2} “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.” {3} So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them. {4} Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.”

The Lord tells Moses to treat the Midianites as enemies and to kill them (Num 25:17), and to carry out the Lord’s vengeance against them (Num 31:3).

One question to ask is whether Moses extended God’s order to include the killing of the women and boys as well as the men? The soldiers certainly thought that only the men should be killed, they are rebuked by Moses, for not killing the woman. We should note that there is no mention that God disproved of Moses action, it is therefore probably reasonable to infer that God approved of Moses actions. It was the Lord’s vengeance they were carrying out.

Even Jesus came to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God. We are living in the year of the Lord’s favour, but there will be a day of vengeance in the future.

(Isa 61:2 NIV) to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn,

On vengeance see also Glenn Miller’s piece on God is Wrathful, Vengeful, Jealous, and Angry every day—and you want me to have a relationship with Him?!

So the 12,000 soldiers kill every man, and the five kings of Midian and capture the Midianite woman and children, herds, flocks and goods as plunder, they also killed Balaam who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin. The soldiers understood the Lord’s command, to “take vengeance”, to include only the Midianite men. Why kill the men, if only the women were involved in the immorality and seduction of the Israelite men? Because the Midianite leaders had joined themselves to Israel’s enemies (see Num 22:4, 7 and Jos 13:21). The five kings of Midian listed here (31:8), Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba are the same five who had allied themselves to Sihon king of the Amorites (Jos 13:21), who would not let the Israelites pass along the King’s Highway which went through his territory. Evidently not all the Midianites were killed because the Midianites crop up later (Judg 6:1).

{ Num 31:5} So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. {6} Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling. {7} They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. {8} Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. {9} The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. {10} They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. {11} They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, {12} and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

The soldiers are content to kill just the men, however Moses thinks otherwise, because it was the women who were guilty in seducing the men into sexual immorality, so they had to be killed as well. This is not only vengeance, but it is to prevent a repetition in the future. It is clear from these verses, that not just one Midianite woman was involved. Moses has a clear reason for killing the non-virgin women, they were the ones who had seduced the Israelite men to commit sexual immorality and to worship Baal of Peor. Thus breaking their covenant with the Lord and provoking his judgement.

{Num 31:13} Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. {14} Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. {15} “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. {16} “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people.

The killing of the boys and non-virgin women:

So now we come to the verses that we do not like, Num 31:17–18.

{Num 31:17} Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, {18} but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

So we have situation, all the men have been killed, and now the sexually active women (probably those over 12) had to be killed, because they had seduced the Israelites. Some of the women would be the mothers of the boys. Boys over 12 would be classed as fighting men and would have been already killed in the fight.

So we are left with about 64,000 children mostly 12 and under, we know that there were 32,000 women who had never slept with a man (Num 31:35). There are four choices:

* Leave them all alive to die a slow death in the desert of hunger, thirst and wild animals, with the prospect of being made slaves by the Moabites or used for child sacrifice to their god Chemosh as was their practice. There is no one to look after the children and the towns were burnt (Num 31:10).

* Kill them all.

* Kill the boys and assimilate the virgin girls.

* Assimilate all of them into the Israelite tribes. Then the boys would take vengeance upon the Israelites when they became men.

Moses chose option 3. Ultimately the boys suffered because of the stupidity of their leaders and parents.

As for the boys they would have died anyway because there would be no one to look after them. Given the option of a slow death from hunger and thirst, clearly God chose the merciful option of a quick death. All the cattle had been taken as booty. Had he allowed them to live among the Israelites they would take revenge later when they became men. If you’re going to do the job do it right. The Moabites would probably have used the boys for child sacrifice (by fire) as was their practice.

The status of the women, whether married or unmarried would have been clear from the clothes and jewelry they wore, no special virginity test would be needed.

Were the girls taken into prostitution?

There is no evidence that the Israelites would have used the girls as prostitutes, the Law was against prostitution.

Lev 19:29 ”‘Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.

(Deu 23:17–18 NIV) No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. {18} You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.

Lev 19:20 ”‘If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.

Further the virgins would mostly be too young to have sex anyway, those old enough to have sex would have been married. The commands regarding (adult) women captives are quite modern for Bronze Age ANE people.

(Deu 21:10–14 NIV) When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, {11} if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. {12} Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails {13} and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. {14} If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

What happened to the young women?

(Num 31:25–30 NIV) The LORD said to Moses, {26} “You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. {27} Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. {28} From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep or goats. {29} Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the Lord’s part. {30} From the Israelites’ half, select one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep, goats or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the Lord’s tabernacle.”

(Num 31:32–54 NIV) The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, {33} 72,000 cattle, {34} 61,000 donkeys {35} and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man. {36} The half share of those who fought in the battle was: 337,500 sheep, {37} of which the tribute for the LORD was 675; {38} 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the LORD was 72; {39} 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the LORD was 61; {40} 16,000 people, of which the tribute for the LORD was 32. {41} Moses gave the tribute to Eleazar the priest as the Lord’s part, as the LORD commanded Moses. {42} The half belonging to the Israelites, which Moses set apart from that of the fighting men—{43} the community’s half—was 337,500 sheep, {44} 36,000 cattle, {45} 30,500 donkeys {46} and 16,000 people. {47} From the Israelites’ half, Moses selected one out of every fifty persons and animals, as the LORD commanded him, and gave them to the Levites, who were responsible for the care of the Lord’s tabernacle. {48} Then the officers who were over the units of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—went to Moses {49} and said to him, “Your servants have counted the soldiers under our command, and not one is missing. {50} So we have brought as an offering to the LORD the gold articles each of us acquired—armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces—to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD.” {51} Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted from them the gold—all the crafted articles. {52} All the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds that Moses and Eleazar presented as a gift to the LORD weighed 16,750 shekels. {53} Each soldier had taken plunder for himself. {54} Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds and brought it into the Tent of Meeting as a memorial for the Israelites before the LORD.

So the 12,000 soldiers get 15,968 girls, just over one per family and the remaining 16,000 are distributed among the community, the Levites getting 320 of these girls. Some suggest that the female prisoners were used as sacrifices to the Lord on the basis of the KJV which says:

(Num 31:28–29 KJV) And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: {29} Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.

However there is no evidence that the heave offering ever included human sacrifice. Child sacrifice was against the Law.

(Lev 18:21 NIV) ”‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

(Lev 20:2–4 NIV) “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. {3} I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. {4} If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death,

Rules of war:

(Deu 20:10–19 NIV) When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. {11} If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. {12} If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. {13} When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. {14} As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. {15} This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. {16} However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. {17} Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. {18} Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. {19} When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them?

(Gen 34:25–29 NIV) Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male. {26} They put Hamor and his son Shechem to the sword and took Dinah from Shechem’s house and left. {27} The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled. {28} They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields. {29} They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses.


1. For the relevant background see Num 22, 23, 24, Num 25:1–3, and Gen 15:16
2. The Midianites were half brothers to the Israelites and were on friendly terms
3. Midianite leaders join with Moab to incite against Israel # Nu 22:4. The Midian princes had also allied with Sihon king of the Amorites (Josh 13:21)
4. Midianite leaders together with the Moabite leaders: Sent for Balaam to curse Israel # Nu 22:5–7, God would not curse but would only bless Israel.
5. Moabites and Midianites seduced Israel to idolatry and immorality # Nu 25:1–18 as a means to get God to judge his own people.
6. God first judged his own people severely and 24,000 died
7. The reason for killing the Midianites was given in Num 25:17–18, “because they treated you as enemies”.
8. The reason for killing the women is given in Num 31:15–16, they seduced the men into idolatry and immorality resulting in a plague in which 24,000 died.
9. As for the boys they would have died anyway because there would be no one to look after them. Given the option of a slow death from hunger and thirst, clearly God chose the merciful option of a quick death. Had he allowed them to live among the Israelites they would take revenge later when they became men. If you’re going to do the job do it right. The Moabites would probably have used the boys for child sacrifice (by fire) as was their practice.
10. He was clearly merciful to the 32,000 virgin girls, after all he spared their lives.
11. Our text says nothing about slave-whores? See Deu 21:11
12. Prostitution was against the law
13. In the context of ancient Near East (ANE) bronze-age culture of ~1500 BC it was either the fledgling nation of Israel or the Midianites. The future of God’s chosen people was at stake.
14. Evidently they did not kill ALL the Midianites because they remained a thorn in the side, see Judg 7:12 etc etc.
15. Further we should note that the God who gives life has the right to take it (Job 1:21).

The bottom line is that the Midianites were on friendly terms with the Israelites but the leaders joined with those who wanted to destroy Israel and treated them as enemies. The children suffered because of bad decisions made by the parents. Something common to all life.

And what should a persons punishment be for rape? What does the Bible say?

Please read the entire answer before jumping to another weak argument over the Bible when you have not studied it in depth. What you have done is looked at a few scriptures and taken a stance on them…what happened to reading the WHOLE thing before drawing an ethical conclusion?

Qingu's avatar

You expect me to believe that your answer reflects in-depth Biblical study? As opposed to copying and pasting from some lame website? Bahahaha.

If you want to make your own arguments I’m more than happy to respond. I do have a policy of not responding to plagiarized arguments—unless their authors are willing to come on Fluther and defend their positions.

Qingu's avatar

I will say I’m curious as to why you’d have a problem with raping virgin war captives as in Numbers 31, in light of Deuteronomy 21:10:

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her.

No consent necessary. Just a brief period of mourning for her family, possibly killed by you, before you can sleep with your “booty.” What would you say if an American took an Iraqi virgin girl and treated her this way?

mellamashermosa's avatar

How do you accuse me of plagerism when I CLEARLY WROTE, “Your answer for Numbers is found in a AWESOME READ that you do well to explain sense you are a ANE culture student:”

Then I put the quote THANK YOU! Did you see the colons? Did you realize I called it an Awesome READ and not my personal info.

I mean, even when I give you my OWN info, per my personal research you seek to find holes in something you never quite studied out in the first place, so why waste my time when I found something that concludes the research I have done without my having to waste my precious typing time.

Seriously though, you are wasting my time. You have absolutely NO proof for any of your claims except for little Bible verses here and there that you cant back historically, or anything like that. I have asked you over and over again to prove your suppositions with proper interpretation and you continue to have ZERO evidence. For that reason you (as with any other case), have NO grounds to stand on except for mere opinion and common atheistic ignorance. Sad…all because you wont STUDY…you have lopsided, pointless views on a culture and time, and language that you know nothing about. Please get a stronger argument and dont try to undermine me as a Christian as I did my homework before I became one…I did not just follow tradition and just jump into something that I did not know was the truth.

Because honestly, if you were a real “atheist”, you would not be bashing the Bible on minor points, because any real atheist that studies history sees the Bible as an awesome historical book although they deny any deity. They actually study and have better claims than just staying on two passages that they themselves cant logically do justice.

What about the prophecies of the Scriptures, are those all false too? What about the prophecies of Daniel…are those all fictitious and useless and just someone’s imagination that all of a sudden because reality?

Just like you would like to know my views on minor things, can you please tell me your historical and biblical understanding on Major themes of scripture…certainly not.

Until then, your every argument is extremely weak, and as far as I am concerned, they have already been answered and it is up to you to study them out.

Qingu's avatar


Are you going to respond to my points or are you going to stick with yelling (weirdly inconsistent) personal attacks and copying and pasting other people’s work?

(If you’d like to hear my other views on the Bible, I’m more than happy to discuss it with you—you can send me a private message or start a new question on the topic. As I see it, though, Biblical prophecy doesn’t have much to do with pre-marital sex. But seriously, PM me if you’re interested.)

Qingu's avatar

Also, while I’ll admit calling it plagiarism is a bit harsh, I think the convention on Fluther—and certainly on other message boards I’ve been on—is to attribute your source with a link.

And really, it’s just not good form to copy and paste someone else’s argument. (How would you feel if I responded in kind with 50,000 words copied and pasted from some atheist website?) In the future, you should try to internalize other people’s arguments and restate them in your own words, so the people you’re talking to can actually interact with your points.

mellamashermosa's avatar

Well, you might consider this another plagiarism, but I will tell you the conclusion of the matter in a few words of another person that wrote you in March. Oh how these words ring true:

It would seem you have just enough biblical knowledge (or the lack thereof) to be dangerous . . . to your own soul (due to your misinterpretation though) ! ; )
Perhaps we can meet again in say, 100 years and compare notes on the reality of God and all this Bible stuff (although this be highly unlikely).
However by that time, I don’t think this will be necessary.
I’m sorry you feel this way. I don’t really know if its your intention to be hurtful by statements that you’ve made (“your fictional deity”, etc.), but I really see no point in continuing this conversation. It may prove to be a source of entertainment for you, however as I see the sort of responses you make, its clear to me I can be more conducive with my time communicating with others. Thank you for your consideration.

…absolutely true….we will talk more when you have evidence and your Hebrew down. Other than that, quit polluting boards with your pointless, proofless arguments that come from a hard heart and close ears :)

Qingu's avatar

Do you speak Hebrew?

SeventhSense's avatar

The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The name is the mother of the ten thousand things.

Send your desires away and you will see the mystery.
Be filled with desire and you will see only the manifestation.

As these two come forth they differ in name.
Yet at their source they are the same.
This source is called a mystery.

Darkness within darkness, the gateway to all mystery.

Tao Te Ching Verse 1

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

woo hoo, lots of parentheses and numbers and haughtiness

SeventhSense's avatar

mallowmarshmallow, that was quite the lengthy monologue.

hitomi's avatar

Am I the only one that just couldn’t be bothered to make it through the ESSAY that was posted??? I really felt like I SHOULD read it to get a clear idea of the argument, but then I decided that it was probably unnecessary…

SeventhSense's avatar

Sometimes I think it’s extremely self absorbed the way people post these things. I mean it’s relevant at times to have lengthy discussions but most times I think it’s better to limit and allow space for reasonable paced discussion. If I met some of these people on Fluther at a party, I would be like, “OK just shut up already.” Or more likely just walk away from their self serving monologue.

Qingu's avatar

It’s kind of a moot point—she didn’t write the essay. She copied and pasted it.

I’m more than happy to interact with people’s long arguments, as long as they’re the ones actually making them.

SeventhSense's avatar

You’ve got more patience than me…as I get older I think I get crankier…and maybe aware of more limited time.
Sometimes I feel like Jim Gaffigan.

proXXi's avatar

@mellamashermosa: Could you please copypasta the bible passages that suggest I should be put to death for dest driving a car before committing to purchase?

Randoley's avatar

I’m waiting until marriage. I’m 40. It’s worked fine for me.

TexasDude's avatar

I believe in waiting for love, which I’m doing. Marriage is just a social construct, as far as I’m concerned.

Response moderated
Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. At least one incident has surfaced like that there could have been way more unkown in Iraq.

[Cortez broke down as he confessed to raping the girl as her parents and sister were shot dead in another room.

The case is one of several in which US troops are accused of killing Iraqis.

According to the plea agreement, Cortez admitted conspiring with three other soldiers, Private First Class Jesse Spielman, Specialist Barker and Steven Green, a now discharged soldier, to rape Abeer Qassim al-Janabi.

In court, Cortez admitted the plan was hatched as they played cards and that the girl had been targeted because there was only one male in her house, making it an easy target.

He said: “During the time me and Barker were raping Abeer, I heard five or six gunshots that came from the bedroom.

“After Barker was done, Green came out of the bedroom and said that he had killed them all, that all of them were dead.”

Cortez added: “Green then placed himself between Abeer’s legs to rape her. When Green was finished, he stood up and shot Abeer in the head two or three times.”

The entire crime took about five minutes and the girl knew her parents and sister had been shot while she was being raped, the hearing heard.]

That was one that was known of. To be honest I am surprised anything was done about it. After all it was just some Iraqi teen and herfamily not like it was the cheerleader down the block, further more we don’t have anyone who would classify as a sexual deviant in the military, they are all good guys [if the sarcasm is too dry sorry, get some water and choke it down]. Most Americans I passed either did not now this incident had happened, or scarcely cared.

chinchin31's avatar

I think it is better to wait from the standpoint of avoiding unwanted pregnancies , STD etc. It can make you life a lot simpler when you wait. But at the same time , people nowadays wait a lot longer before they get married and therefore they face a lot more temptations to have sex especially as we live in a world where people are a lot more mobile and don’t live with their parents until marriage like they did very long ago when people took religion seriously.

Also I don’t think it is a good idea to get married .. to have sex so to speak. You might be dissapointed. When thinking about marriage you should think about more important practical every day things. Sex is a very small part of marriage.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther