@JamesSkepp That's fundamentalist apologetics, not science

Just to get across, what this is about: The (original Greek) sources state that a guy named Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead. The scholar consensus is that the sources actually state that. It doesn't mean that the scholars all believe that this really happened, just that it's unambiguously in there. That's the whole point of scientific New Testament studies.

What is not in there is a statement this Jesus guy drank beer. Someone who reads that into the tradition, is a nutcase, even if that statement is more believable than coming back from the dead.

Now the fundamentalist from Idaho you quoted, who probably doesn't even know Greek, states that "no sex before marriage" is in the ancient source, while the scholar consensus is that those fringe ideas are not to be found there. That is why the American purity cult is something that has no traction in any mainstream churches or in the majority of Christianity, because they follow real scientists, not nutcases. That's hard to grasp for the Christian Taliban, but that's how we roll.

Also the Hebrew Bible doesn't contain any evidence of legally banning sex before marriage. In ancient Israel defiling a virgin was considered property infringement, which is why the law of Mose sets up a compensation for the owner (her father). If that would have been a real violation, the source would prescribe the stoning punishment. It doesn't, for a reason.

BTW: You don't have to quote back unreliable apologetic translations for sources I already quoted the Greek original to you.

@JamesSkepp

Here you're quoting one book that's agreed by everyone not to be a historical account of cross society picture, but rather a semi-metaphorical religious text about how this or that person thinks god wants us to behave.

Regarding what he have in religious-political writing (which the ancients didn't seperate), there is an entire field of secular scholars studying the "New Testament" scientifically using the critical method to learn about history (of religion/politics) without taking in mixed-in theological messaging. For them this text is just treated like every other historical text including the Quran and Mein Kampf.

So there is no reason to take it literally without the critical lens or put evangelical zealot meaning into it. It's still a statement against marriage debunking "single man = bad". The latter just more or less equals the present trad-con American culture. No one else on the world thinks this way.

It's generally accepted that sex before marriage is forbidden in Christianity

That's a recent interpretation or distortion of the source material by (American) evangelicals and other fundamentalists. That's not even the interpretation of the RCC for over thousand years before modern America even existed. No sex before marriage is a fringe position in Christianity. It's only a mainstream position in Islam.

So coming back to the ancient source: The writer of the greek letter believed, that a single man without a woman and children in tow can further his own (the man's and the writer's) religious-political agenda better than married man weighted down by a family.

That's what the text says, it doesn't talk about sex outside marriage at all. That's just bunk made up by fanatics.

The context of this discussion still is @SeasonedRP quoted:

I mention getting married because the leaders at the time thought that was what was best for society, not necessarily individual men. They clearly understood human nature and tried to set a framework that would be best for the group overall.

And that's what the agenda of the Roman citizen wring the letters mentioned above was, too. He didn't care about his sheep's own interests.

@Vermillion-Rx In the gynocentric world order, the "long-term relationship" replaced marriage as the "official" relationship between man and woman. Originating from the gay community (where dating was invented too) it is completely designed around female needs. Especially the need of serial monogamy: "long-term" commitment with an easy escape route to hypergamy. Due to the latter it is not, what it says on the label, it doesn't last long-term, just for a turn, as we all know.

From a gynocentric perspective "girlfriend" replaced "wife" and "boyfriend" replaced "husband". The previously colloquial terms now have an almost legal meaning usually describing cohabitation leading up to something that might be considered common law marriage in several places.

To challenge this, I don't like to use the term "boyfriend" at all, because it is emasculating (we're men, not boys), and I like to call all my women "girlfriends", because that's essentially describing "girls we fool around with".

So when the LTR talk comes up. "Can I call you my boyfriend." - "No." - "What am I for you?" - "You are one of my girlfriends." perfectly sets the frame. The term also nicely excludes the friendzone, while it works around queer terms like "FB" or "FWB" and strictly sets the context to heterosexual.

Of course, it only works from a position of power. However entering a relationship from a position of no power is a really unwise decision for a man anyway.

@JamesSkepp

If that was the case we would have seen a lot of texts pointing out the fact that mans best interest is to not get married

A Greek tradition attributed to a Roman citizen named Saul (Hebrew) or Paul (Greek) states in a letter supposedly addressed at Christians in Corinth, later being added to canon named the "New Testament" as "1st Corinthians", chapter 7:

Περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε, καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι· (Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”)

This is a recommendation addressed to recipients in ancient Corinth to refrain from sexual intercourse and therefore marriage. In the ancient context sexual intercourse is actually a legal obligation of marriage, which is explained further down in the tradition. So a men or women refraining from having sex won't get married. It's a strong ancient statement against marriage.

διὰ δὲ τὰς πορνείας ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω καὶ ἑκάστη τὸν ἴδιον ἄνδρα ἐχέτω. (But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.)

That is a description of Roman monogamous marriage law. Or in other words: If they can't live without having sexual intercourse, the Corinthians should follow Roman Empire rules. This is not surprising with the text being attributed to a Roman citizen, writing letters meant being literate, meant you were part of the 1%.

Those Roman Empire rules weren't made by rulers to help men or women having sex, they were first and foremost intended to keep the Roman power structure intact, and allow the military to get enough recruits to further expand the empire. And religious leaders (remember the literate 1% elite) to gain power over followers.

@JamesSkepp

right wing sci-fi utopia

Not going to happen, because "traditional-conservative" is not sci-fi, it's the bible belt clinging to the past. It's the Amish people stuck in the pre-technology age.

And that's not meant derogative. In fact, it might a very beautiful lifestyle possible for some people who happen to live in a sparsely populated area, who happen to own enough land to do their own thing and GTOW.

But you can't have the cake and eat to it, too. And that's why "right-wing" utopia is impossible to happen, just how "saving the world climate" is impossible, too.

You seem to think Islam is a religion, like Christianity or Buddhism. It is not. Islam is a political movement that has religious elements woven into it.

The seperation between "political movement" and "religious movement" is a recent purely American invention. Other people from this world don't understand this concept or don't even have words in their language for it. For them a religion IS politics.

That seperation once was America's greatest advantage, when it was dealing with the Roman-Catholic Curch, the Church of England and independence from The Crown as a country. It now became it's biggest vulnerability when dealing with Islam. That's just human history.

@SeasonedRP It's interesting to compare the "proto-RP" Hebrew bible (called "Old Testament" by Christians) to the BP "New Testament", employing Graeco-Roman law replacing the law of Mose.

There was lots of infighting between early Christian sects about the right way, from sharing everything including wives (communism) to sexual ascetism (like nofap), because the savior coming back is just around the corner. From the law of Mose being in full effect to being abolished completely, with the latter clearly being intended to make more proselytes.

In the end the sect in Rome closest to the Roman emperor made the cut and their variant became the state religion of the West, with the winners taking it all, retconning themselves into history and killing off opposition. Their model was serial monogamy, opting for the sexual strategy preferred by females.