Sex before marriage: is it a sin?

yes it is and it's called fornication

Posted: at 26-03-2010 04:27 PM (14 years ago) | Newbie

of course it's a a sin

Posted: at 29-03-2010 03:28 PM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac

am not sure if it is a sin or not........All i know is that it is counter productive to humans want of happiness.
It is natural that sex with someone for the first time is usually more explosive than that of the 500th time. So changing partners will only but improve ones experience of enjoyable sex. If everyone practises sleeping with everyone else and exchanging partners as soon as they get board, then we will have a situation where continuity of care for the infants is broken as relationships or sex partners change.
Also, pregnancy comes with great responsibility. So choosing a companion to make a baby with is also ultimately important as pregnancy can always occur through segxwal intercourse.

Also, because of experiencing different partners, humans can develop certain segxwal fantasy helped by experience, that their partners can not humanly live up to.

So a debate understanding all these made it common sense to know that a guide line for how people interact segxwally with each other is important.

Posted: at 3-04-2010 01:33 PM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac

I've got no answer to dat...
Pple keep saying it's a sin while only 0.5% of the individuals here can prove his/her virginity.
We've committed so much sins, should I say by wot we see, touch, hear or through our thinking? only The Most High can 4giv us.
Sorry Poster, no answer to ur question.

Posted: at 15-04-2010 06:32 PM (14 years ago) | Upcoming

guys no cover up on thisooo! na sin

Posted: at 30-04-2010 10:58 AM (14 years ago) | Upcoming

sex before marriage and after it is a sin.
husband and wife can make sex just for making children not for pleasure... that says Bible
but i don't agree with it...

Posted: at 30-04-2010 04:13 PM (14 years ago) | Hero

Posted: at 30-04-2010 10:06 PM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac

LET HIM THAT HAS EAR ..... LET HIM HEAR ..........


ALL FORNICATORS , ADULTERER , ETC .....THAT MEANS RELATED SINS WILL HAVE THEIR PART IN THE LAKE OF HELL FIRE ........ THERE SHALL BE GNASHING OF TEETH DAY AND NIGHT ..........

SO BE WISE MY THERE PALS

Posted: at 3-05-2010 01:23 PM (14 years ago) | Gistmaniac

Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph's genealogy?
Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph's genealogy.
a. Tamar - disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19).
b. Rahab - was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1).
c. Ruth - at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14).
d. Bathsheba - became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5).
To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of segxwal impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, "The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four "loose women" in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?"

Posted: at 13-05-2010 05:30 PM (13 years ago) | Newbie

Dat na ur own wahala quoter

Posted: at 13-05-2010 09:55 PM (13 years ago) | Gistmaniac