On premarital sex.

To preface this, I want to make clear that I do not necessarily believe what I am about to say. As of right now, I am simply toying with and mulling over the ideas that I am about to explain.

Anyway, because I can't come up with a clever way of working it into a sentence, I'm just going to flat out say that what I am going to argue here is that premarital sex is perhaps not wrong, and is in fact not prohibited in Scripture.

Perhaps I should also preface this by saying I'm not a Bible scholar. So maybe everything I present here is completely wrong. Again, these are just thoughts that are going through my head.

Let me begin by defining the term in question: "fornication." I am defining fornication as having consensual sex before marriage, as it is commonly defined in the church today. As I've been doing some research, it seems that the more archaic meaning of "fornication" is just any consensual extramarital sex; or, figuratively, idolatry.

The instances that I can think of off the top of my head where "fornication" is mentioned in the Bible are 1 Corinthians 6:14-17, Hebrews 13:4, and Revelation 21:8. There are probably more, but it's hard to decipher when the Bible is talking about "fornication" versus general "sexual immorality." In fact, the usage of these two terms appears to be interchangeable based on the translation used! So I guess there's the first issue--why are some verses cited as talking about premarital sex, and others are cited as talking about extramarital sex after marriage (aka infidelity)? I've done research--they both use the same Greek word: pornei. People say that context can determine the meaning, but it seems that the context doesn't indicate whether the word means premarital sex, or infidelity. So who gets to say how the Greek word gets interpreted? And what right do they have to say that?

I want to speak specifically about the 1 Corinthians verse here. Chapter 6:14-17 says,
"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh.' But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him." Somewhere in there, the Greek word "pornei" is used. And some versions have interpreted it as "fornication." However, from the context of this passage, it seems clear to me that what is being talked about is the body of Christ as a whole being unfaithful to Christ. So this is the more archaic form of "fornication" here. But I think our contemporary understanding of the word "fornication" has forced the misinterpretation of this passage.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the idea of premarital sex as sinful was some kind of European cultural carryover. 17th-19th century Europe was all about sexual suppression. And the church was hugely interwoven into the fabric of society, so it could be very possible that if premarital sex as sinful was a cultural idea, then it became associated with a Christian belief.

I have also heard quite a few stories about Christian couples that waited until they were married to have sex. Then, when they were married, and they had sex for the first time, they found that they were completely incompatible sexually. That led to a great deficiency in their marriage, and they ended up divorcing. Theoretically, the pain of divorce could have been avoided had they had relations before marriage. Perhaps, therefore, it might be better to have sex before marriage to find out if a couple is sexually compatible or not, rather than waiting for marriage when the stakes are much higher.

The more I think about it, the simultaneous ideas of "no sex before marriage" and "no divorce," which are so ubiquitous in Christian culture, seem extremely risky.

In conclusion, I am considering that it might be better to have sex before marriage, and that maybe the Bible doesn't actually forbid premarital sex. Perhaps that is just a contemporary cultural idea forced upon Scripture, altering its interpretation.




Further reading as food for thought:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/samantha-pugsley/2014/08/i-waited-until-my-wedding-night-to-lose-my-virginity-and-i-wish-i-hadnt/

In defense of musicians

A lot of people say they have no respect for a musical artist because they don't write their own music. That's silly.

Consider actors, who are also artists. No one expects them to write the scripts for the films, shows, or plays that they perform in, and yet their talent is still commended, solely for their acting abilities. Their ability to write a script is not considered.

And consider dancers, who are artists as well. They may not choreograph the pieces that they perform, but people still recognize dancers' talent. Their talent as dancers--not choreographers--is what is important.

Why can't we treat musical artists the same way? A vocalist may not have written the stuff they sing, but so what? He or she still deserves to be respected for the ability to deliver the vocal performance. Meanwhile, the writer of the song should be credited for writing a great song.

Of course, that makes an artist that much more impressive if they write their own material AND perform it. But writing his or her own material certainly should not be a requirement for them to earn respect as an artist and a performer.

I will end this post with a quote from comedian Mitch Hedberg:

As a comedian, I always get into situations where I'm auditioning for movies and sitcoms, you know? As a comedian, they want you to do other things besides comedy. They say, "Alright, you're a comedian; can you write? Write us a script. Act in this sitcom." They want me to do shit that's related to comedy, but it's not comedy, man. It's not fair, you know? It's as if I was a cook, and I worked my ass off to become a really good cook, and they said, "Alright, you're a cook; can you farm?