Should Christianity be more flexible regarding sex?

So this is something that I have been thinking about for a while and decided to make this topic thanks to a post in the "Virgin thread".

Anyways, as we know people live much longer than back in Biblical times and because of this people are getting married much later in life. In fact many people don't get married until they are thirty or older.

My question is it still reasonable for Christians to expect people to wait until they are thirty or more when it use to be far more normal for people to get married at fifteen or younger? Im well aware religion isn't the most flexible thing, but it seems to me that asking people to wait almost twice as long for something as deeply desired as sex is both unreasonable and frankly naive.

What???? You should be over thirty years old to be able to get married according to Christianity? Please tell me I misread this post.

Also could someone clarify for me why Christians believe that widows who engage in relationships are adulterers?

If Christianity becomes any more flexible it'll disintegrate, it has been watered down and mainstreamed enough as it is. Anyway I think you're confounding cause and effect here. What you're proposing is that Christianity becomes more flexible and liberal with respect to sex because people are getting married much later now thus causing those who abstain a great deal of distress and agitation over a considerably extended period of time commencing at puberty. But in reality, people are getting married much later nowadays because of sexual liberalism and the unprecedented accessibility of sex. As such, those who do not adhere to such a view on sex wouldn't get married as late as those who view sex in a much more liberal way. In more conservative societies people are getting married much younger than their more liberal societies' counterparts. The idea of a universal adequate age for marriage or more generally for settling down that encompasses people from all social classes and backgrounds is moot. Waiting does some people good, while it does some others the opposite.

At any rate, there are two kinds of people in this world: those who view sex as an intimate thing subject to virtue and regulation and those who don't. If you opt for the first conviction then you'll just have to suck it up and stick to it.

What the frag are you on about? christianity does not demand that you are 30 or any age. Also back in the day it was infact very common for girls to be married off at a very young age and men to find their wives just out of adolescent.

Just because some guy claims to have been unable to find a wife and didn't jump out of his parents shadows until in his 30´s does not mean that all christians are like that.

Aren't christians open minded about sex? no need to change ... imo :)

My understanding is that marriage in Christianity is a perpetual institution that ceases only when both parties involved perish. The death of a spouse wouldn't put an end to it. So if a window engages in sexual intercourse she would be effectively committing adultery. I'm employing the same Christian rationale behind the prohibition of divorce here so I may not be entirely right.

You're both misapprehending the point TC is making. He's arguing that since people live much longer now compared to biblical times, in addition to the unprecedented sexual liberalism of modern civilization, there is no longer an incentive to get married at a young age which leaves abstinence as the only incentive for that, at least seemingly or partly.

Oh I see now.

This problem is not exclusive to Christianity. It's everywhere, except that religious folks suffer more because of "Abstinence". I still view this 'problem' as more social than religious.

I'm 99% sure that (almost) every Christian denomination is ok with remarriage after death of a spouse (e.g. pulling a random verse, Corinthians 7:8-9: To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion).

Vast disagreement though among denominations about divorce/remarriage when a (former) spouse is still alive.

And that's from a strictly biblical point of view? It seems so just making sure.

I'd rather just see it and other religions just disappear. So sick of the bullshit.

Yup, as in e.g. the passage I cited (as well as others).

You guys are the hero of humanity.

It'd be hard to edit Christianity in this day and age. That ship has sailed.

This is exactly why I don't need religion.

What, it isn't? It's 2015, christians don't give a crap what you do anymore. One of em might say "I don't approve" or perhaps stick their nose up at you but that's about as bad as it gets. Big deal. Most of 'em won't say anything at all. The thread title makes it sound like burnings at the stake are still happening in the christian world, lol.

Why? Religions are always changing to adapt to society.

I mean it's not like we can go back and change the Bible like they did in the 600s and before that. If you're going to take the Bible seriously in 2014 (and not many people do) then there's not much room for flexibility. Even checking out a girl is adultery and that's not according to the Old Testament, that's according to JC himself.

Views on sex varies wildly depending on denomination. It's really quite impossible to put this discussion under the blanket of "Christianity".

Like, you've got denominations that view sex as something dirty and only required for procreation, and others, that are mostly in support of most sexual things a couple does so long as they are married before doing it.

Well Christianity isn't real and sex is real so....

I feel like the made up... intangible thing should certainly be more flexible regarding the tangible, real thing.

Let Christianity be. And don't be Christianity.

The Word of God is not flexible. People just treat it that way with things like premarital sex, cursing, using the Lord's name in vain, and tattoos.

That's why I became an agnostic 15 years ago. You can't reconcile a book written thousands of years ago with modern science.

That's not true.

This is a schizophrenic thread. Widows can marry, and there is no issue about marrying in later ages. In most sects marriage is, however, considered to be irrevocable until one of the spouses dies.

People marry at older ages now because of extended life expectancy and longer educational and professional requirements to be able to sustain a household and reproduce.

You're an idiot. View on marriage is part of your worldview, not a religion.

It does not fit the message of the bible. But that would not bug most people as todays hard core Christians cherry pick the hell out of the bible. If they really did fallow the bible they would be in jail.

I don't think so. If you're allowed flexibility and "wiggle room" then clearly god's word isn't perfect.

No, it's a choice, not a requirement.

the priests are very flexible ;)

@slateman_basic:

You misread the post. I'm saying that the average age of marriage is getting close to thirty. Because of this change asking or expecting people to wait for for marriage to have sex (which is now around 15 years longer than it used to be) is an unreasonable expectation due to sex being such a highly desired thing among humans.

Dude, you certainly desperately need reading comprehension lessons.

Despite all the really creepy things I see hard core Christians do in regards to sex.

I'm honestly not sure what the specific rules are.

I think sexuality shouldn't even have anything to do with religion. A lot of people use their religion to strengthen themselves, or as a motivation to becoming better people, and even though that can be done without religion it's fine if you use it, but in my opinion a book shouldn't dictate all of your actions. (No disrespect intended to the ones who do live 100% according to their holy books, it's just not for me)

The concept of priest not being able to have sex was added because church's had alot more power in the past and to prevent a succession of power from priest to son they forbid priests from getting married and having offspring. This is more related to catholic Christianity. However, I do not see the big deal with sex its just the process in which humans come together with random dna and exchange it among-st each-other through forms of intercourse and if they are male and female end up giving birth to offspring which should have higher resistance to illness unless the two humans are closely related. Early Christianity did not treat sex as taboo it was the constant reforms over the years that made it so. Christianity isn't to blame it was all the fault of the humans. However, celibacy is key.

I think Christianity is plenty flexible when it comes to sex. For instance, we aren't taking women who engage in it out to the streets and stoning them to death.

Adultery is a pretty shitty thing to do but we aren't killing women for doing it.

I dont believe there is any law in christianity stating that you have to be 30 before you can be married.

As for sex, different religions have different laws. It's probably not a bad thing for some religions to push the sex after marriage things as otherwise we could have an epidemic of single mothers with kids. Kids do better when raised by both parents. Dont have to be married to do that, but it seems more likely that both parents will be involved if married as opposed to not. Too many deadbeat dads out there.

ok