Is Fornication a Sin?

It is now common practice for most young people to have a sexual relationship at some time before being married. To some this would be considered as the sin of fornication. But is it reasonable, let alone rational, to continue to think that way. 

Historically fornication has been regarded as a serious sin and even a punishable crime. Any bride to be would be certain to be ostracised if she were not a virgin. Perhaps there was good reason in the past to constrain people from sexual relations before marriage. In the days before reliable and available contraception it would have been detrimental to sire children in such precarious times without the support of a family. Such a child would be regarded as a bastard child and his inheritance and succession rights would all be denied to him. 

But now that people can have sex without risking having an unwanted child as well as having protection against diseases is it reasonable to continue to call it a sin?

Does fornication contravene the Golden Rule? That is to do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. I would argue not. If two responsible adults choose to have a sexual relationship outside marriage who are they harming? Is it not their choice? 

Don't get me wrong. I am an advocate of marriage and I can see that there is something very beautiful and precious for a person to save them self for their future spouse. But to choose otherwise is it really a sin? At least I cannot see why it should be so. 

LABELS

Labels can be misleading at the best of times but never more so when applied to spiritual matters. I think of myself as a Christian but I should probably qualify that by describing myself as a liberal or progressive Christian. Some may not regard me as a Christian at all. Certainly I do not think of myself as religious but I do describe myself as spiritual. Confused? Read on, you will be. 

Then there is the really big question. The God question. Do I believe in God? I certainly believe, or am very open to the idea, that there is something "more" to the reality which is known to us through the Universe. Some call that "more" God. God is seen in basically two ways. The first is as a transcendent presence. God is in all things and cannot be separated from all things. The other is an imminent God who is part of the universe but is also a separate "subject" to the created world which stands in an "object" position to God. This God has a separate will and can intervene and act upon human affairs. This God has a providential history. 

I am not convinced by the latter explanation and much more so by the former, but even then not completely as God is largely unknowable and certainly ineffable. 

In some ways I could describe myself as a humanist. I certainly have much in common with humanist philosophy. I believe as human beings we hold our destiny in our own hands. But then I am certainly no atheist. 

Perhaps I will settle on "spiritual humanist" for today at least, as tomorrow I may change my mind. Some, of course, may regard that as a contradiction in terms. But I am not concerned about that for that is what I am today and that will have to do.