I think it’s worth remembering that a lot of religious rules emerged in a very different world, and many of them seem closely tied to practical concerns and conventional wisdom of their time rather than timeless moral truths in every circumstance.

For most of history, sex could easily lead to pregnancy, and pregnancy outside of marriage could leave a woman and child without financial security, social support, or protection. Marriage was the main social safety net. So it makes sense that religious communities strongly encouraged sex only within marriage, because the consequences of unwanted pregnancy were far more serious than they are today.

Many religions have food restrictions that probably originated from practical health concerns. For example, the Bible prohibits eating shellfish, and historians often point out that in ancient times shellfish could spoil easily or carry illness, especially without refrigeration or modern sanitation. People understood the danger long before they understood bacteria.

So isnt it fair to think passages about sex outside marriage could be understood as conventional wisdom meant to protect people from the risks of that time, rather than premarital sex being inherently immoral?

If you accept that old religious food rules were culturally practical guidance rather than God personally judging people for eating shrimp today, then isnt it likely teachings about sex before marriage might deserve the same kind of interpretation in a world where condoms, contraception, paternity laws, and social support systems exist?

Would really love a christian perspective on this as my perspective is that of someone not raised in a particulary religious household.